Two-level reversal, friend.tech still agreed for you to be friends with the imitation

Author: Shenchao TechFlow

A few weeks ago, friend.tech emerged out of nowhere and quickly captured the attention of various crypto KOLs and media outlets.

A few weeks later, as we eagerly analyze the viral growth patterns and rise of friend.tech, we can't help but think about a broader question—what core technologies should one master to navigate social interactions in web3?

Today, friend.tech has given us a lesson. The core technology of making friends (friend) lies in "you cannot be friends with my competitors."

A few hours ago, friend.tech keenly sensed an old trick in the crypto world: when a project becomes a phenomenal hit, countless clones will spring up everywhere. Whether out of fear or preemptive measures, their official Twitter account released the following statement:

"To ensure that loyal users receive fair rewards during our testing period, users who switch to forks and clones will automatically choose to stop earning points and forfeit their existing points. They will still be able to use the application normally."

Moreover, the accompanying image was quite poignant, depicting money and tears, with an obvious meaning.

The statement is clear: you can use various clones, but once you do, you won't be able to earn points with us.

Since friend.tech is built on Twitter's existing accounts and social networks, it can relatively easily identify these "disloyal users" who have linked their Twitter accounts to other clones and revoke their eligibility for point rewards.

In contrast to the whitelist for various project airdrops, this statement effectively serves as a blacklist for non-participation.

Disloyalty = No rewards. A direct yet somewhat arbitrary logic.

Two-Level Reversal

There are no eternal friends, only eternal interests.

After friend.tech released this statement, the prominent figure Cobie humorously and accurately added a sharp comment, providing a definition:

"Loyalty (noun), generally refers to a strong sense of support and allegiance, often due to the threat of economic consequences."

In other words, Cobie was implying that friend.tech threatens users with economic consequences, forcing them to refrain from using other clones under the negative expectation of potentially losing airdrop points.

In crypto projects, the first place often has extremely high return expectations.

Since friend.tech is the project that recently fired the first shot in socialfi, users must weigh: is the combined return from participating in other clone projects higher, or is the return from only playing friend.tech higher?

However, forcing users to make a binary choice seems inherently problematic.

The spirit of crypto emphasizes openness and decentralization (though some may disguise themselves as decentralized), allowing assets, users, and protocols to flow freely. Such a blatant opposition to using competing products and revoking rewards is quite rare in the entire ecosystem.

At the same time, the crypto community values consensus. A favorable situation can attract a swarm of supporters, but if it annoys everyone, it can also lead to a mass exodus.

Friend.tech's earlier statement was bound to face backlash from users, and if various KOLs stirred the pot, the negative impact on social media would be significant.

Thus, five hours after friend.tech's first statement, an apology letter from its founder Racer was released:

He admitted that his previous remarks about restricting users from using clones and counterfeit applications stemmed from fear and a zero-sum mentality.

He expressed his fear of disappointing others, fear that his golden age had passed, and fear that he was unfit for this position. This fear led him to exhibit a zero-sum mentality in his earlier statement, advising everyone not to use other products.

He called this a foolish statement, as it told friends not to enjoy themselves and made potential partners feel like he only viewed them as competitors. He stated that this was contrary to the open culture of the crypto space and expressed deep regret.

This public apology letter conveyed that the team's previous considerations were misguided, with fear overshadowing reason, leading to such a poor decision.

In my opinion, the fact that this open letter was issued indicates that reason triumphed over fear, as it implicitly conveyed a subtext:

"If this continues, our project could end amidst condemnation, and our interests will be harmed."

Whether for the sake of calming emotions or out of genuine sentiment, this two-level reversal at least highlights the following issues:

• The team or founder may not be very crypto-native, leading to such mistakes;
• The team lacks judgment in public relations and marketing;
• Governance and business thinking issues cannot simply be resolved by making a product web3-compliant.

The world is bustling for profit, and everyone is scrambling for benefits. If one wishes to demonstrate sincerity and mend the already fractured consensus, perhaps a round of airdrops that benefits everyone could provide a spectacular conclusion to this two-level reversal.

Is There Nothing New in Web3?

The monopolistic thinking of friend.tech is not a new phenomenon; it has historical precedents in the long river of the internet.

Over 20 years ago, the 3Q War exploded across various media. The competition between 360 and QQ may be a distant memory for younger readers.

In 2010, two major software companies in China, Qihoo and Tencent, accused each other of unfair competition. In September 2010, Qihoo released the 360 Privacy Protector and 360 QQ Guardian, claiming they could protect QQ users' privacy and online security. On November 3, Tencent announced that QQ software would not run on computers with 360 software installed.

"Use me or use it." In the internet of 20 years ago, companies pressured users to choose between QQ and 360 based on user habits and social needs;

20 years later in web3, projects pressure users to choose based on airdrop expectations and rewards.

In the more greedy and chaotic web3, only children make choices; those looking to profit will naturally want it all. As long as the rewards are publicly accessible, there's no reason to choose A over B.

Thus, friend.tech's abrupt change of course likely reflects a rapid realization of the wonders of web3 after an impulsive moment:

Monopolistic practices in web3 cannot be enforced through coercive terms but must be built on a foundation of value consensus.

BTC and ETH are no exception; ultimately, we still need to be more open and allow everyone to choose friends based on shared interests and time.