The "Marketing Aesthetics" of Crypto

Author: YBB Capital Researcher Zeke

I. Celebrity Coins: From Birth to Marketing

Warren Buffett has continued the charitable legacy of his late wife, Susan Buffett, for 23 years, transforming the admiration of a group of business elites into a globally recognized "time auction," creating the most iconic "expensive lunch" model in the history of human charity.

The monetization of celebrity time is not uncommon in Web3, from the ancient Time New Bank to the later Friend.tech. The path of SocialFi has been explored for over seven or eight years, but in most cases, it has been more noise than substance. After all, in the on-chain world, speculative trading often outweighs this "fragile social" established by tokens. Most users are not genuinely interested in the exclusive insights shared by celebrities but are focused on the "volume and price" of the celebrities. Conversely, for top celebrities, the profit potential of the SocialFi platform is too small and cumbersome; for KOLs, the scarce influence becomes awkward and foolish in a price-transparent environment with few users.

The lack of accumulation means that the path of SocialFi is currently unfeasible. Therefore, the monetization path of celebrity value in Web3 needs to be differentiated, transitioned, and then evolved. A paid subscription community, a blue-ticked X account—this combination of Web2 with accumulation is what KOLs currently need. However, the value conversion path for top celebrities has never been smooth, akin to a large enterprise with millions of goods waiting to be sold off; To B is not cost-effective, and To C lacks a carrier.

The transition from the monetization of time to the monetization of influence is a relatively successful first step in this exploratory path. NFTs have played this role for a long time. However, it is evident that the characteristics of NFTs—emphasizing scarcity, fixed-price sales, and lack of liquidity—do not satisfy both buyers and sellers. This method of selling souvenirs has effectively failed after the BTC ecosystem went silent.

The value of celebrities needs a new carrier. Although the answer has long been hidden in the story of Musk and Doge, this matter still requires some opportunities. Last year, the token issuance frenzy of Pump.fun swept through the crypto circle, and the Meme craze coincided with the U.S. presidential election, during which various grassroots-issued presidential coins emerged. The extremely high price increases and popularity alerted some behind-the-scenes operators in the crypto space to the opportunity, leading them to contract or induce real celebrities to issue tokens, while the rest was left to them to operate. This sounds somewhat similar to the collaboration model between MCN agencies and influencers, but the actual situation is quite violent. From Caitlyn Jenner (the American Olympic decathlon champion and one of Trump's biggest fans) to President Mile's LIBRA, it all starts with a tweet and ends with a vertically descending candlestick. The entire process can take several days or, in some cases, just a few hours to complete the harvest. The script often involves social media influencers starting an urgent "investigation," the token issuance team posting to shift blame, ultimately leading to nothing, and the concept of celebrity coins is born amidst this chaos.

However, this path has indeed become very clear. From an initial effectiveness standpoint, the low-barrier distribution channel of Meme is perfect, but what happens to celebrity Memes lacking intrinsic value once the hype fades and PvP ends? The question shifts from the carrier to longevity. AI Agents can tell you about the future of humanity, RWA can describe a hundred trillion-dollar track, but what story can celebrity coins tell?

Trump's answer is quite cliché: he wants to offer a "presidential time" bonus to the first 220 holders of TRUMP, while the top 25 holders will be invited to a special VIP tour of the White House the next day. The value support of celebrity coins has once again rolled back to "time." In my view, this solution can alleviate the short-term urgency of token unlocking but cannot support the long-term growth of token prices.

A sufficiently good Meme should emphasize emotion and narrative rather than empowerment. The value of celebrity coins is not the insights and time of celebrities but the stories of celebrities and the emotions behind them. Trump's dinner invitation resembles the sale of an ultra-expensive version of a Social Token; once presidential time is over, everything will dissipate. How to market TRUMP well? Trump's crypto team might want to consult with the Doge minister, as Doge is tied to Musk, SpaceX, and Tesla. "To The Moon" is still etched in the hearts of crypto users, and the people's currency makes holders believe that 1 Doge = 1 U, challenging traditional finance aligns with the crypto gene. In fact, every point is Musk using his power to sell emotions to the public, even if most of these stories have yet to come true. The marketing of celebrity coins still has a long way to explore; the Meme-ification of personal influence should not be as crude as a tweet or a favorable news piece. Making money in the crypto space is not detestable, but at least one must first understand the crypto space.

II. The Evil Dragon

The Blur project is rarely mentioned anymore; the last time I recall discussing it was when Blast launched its points system.

As the narrative of NFTs fades, many stories have become the past, but the imprint left by Pacman will not disappear. Blur was able to slay the dragon OpenSea by relying on a combination of "Points + zero fees, royalties + social virality," completing a rural siege on the city with a PDD-style approach. The orange logo flooded Twitter on the day of the airdrop; I doubt any NFT player would forget it. From a marketing perspective, Blur's strategy was unbeatable; it not only defeated competitors that other NFT platforms dared not imagine but also attracted many users who had never played NFTs to join the score-boosting army, breaking multiple records in just a few months. Almost all Web3 projects after Blur have revered this marketing template as a bible.

At that time, NFT players who had long suffered from OpenSea were cheering, but Blur ultimately transformed from a dragon-slaying youth into an evil dragon. To put it mildly, Airdrop3 was my first experience of aversion to Web3 incentive activities. Blur adopted a self-destructive approach to exchange for TVL and trading volume. At the beginning of the entire event, I had already stated that NFTs would accelerate their demise. The Bid For Airdrop mechanism encouraged users to place orders without actually buying, leading to false demand and a spiral decline in prices. The mechanism attracted arbitrageurs rather than genuine buyers; once Blur's token value collapses, all blue chips will be buried together. In my view, the death of NFTs was initiated by Blur's Bid incentives, while the launch of Azuki's Elementals series marked the conclusion. Of course, more fundamentally, NFTs have never found a suitable path (Pudgy does not count).

Subsequently, Pacman launched the NFT lending protocol Blend and the Ethereum Layer 2 Blast. The strategies of these two protocols essentially continued Blur's underlying tactics. Blend uses a lending points reward mechanism, allowing users to earn airdrop points by participating in NFT collateral lending, continuing the "trade to mine" logic. Blast adopts a "deposit points + invitation points" model, where users can earn native Blast rewards and airdrop points by staking ETH or stablecoins. The revenue logic of the former relies on common income methods in the lending market, such as lending interest and liquidation arbitrage. The latter achieves returns by staking ETH in DeFi protocols like Lido. Pacman has built a self-circulating crypto bank through the ETH locked in these three protocols, but the returns given back to users are unequal. Except for Blur's early returns, the incentive activities of subsequent projects have basically announced the end of the airdrop era. Centralized points have turned all incentives into black boxes, with self-defined rules and spontaneous point systems criticized by users.

What consequences has the points system triggered? First is false prosperity; when rewards become visible, users lock their assets in various protocols just to exchange for project tokens. Project parties can take these false user data and high TVL to raise funds everywhere, while VCs accustomed to measuring value by data suffer heavy losses. The second point is that it hinders innovation; projects that perform well are overshadowed by those that run good activities, leaving truly technical projects that lack marketing buried. The third point is the fragmentation of liquidity; genuinely valuable assets are locked in various protocols, merely to participate in a game that seems risk-free. The fourth point, and the most crucial one, is that when the points system is introduced, it is equivalent to issuing tokens openly. A large number of studios, retail investors, and whales rush in just to compete for a small piece of cake. Either they compete in quantity or in funds, and retail investors often find their share too small to even cover gas fees, marking the true end of the airdrop era.

Today, the points system remains the mainstream model in Web3, with "points mining" fostering a speculative culture, and the Point Market amplifying this phenomenon. The incentives of airdrops have fundamentally altered the essence of early users and communities. The airdrop era initiated by Uni years ago was well-intentioned, promoting DeFi Summer and achieving genuine user retention and growth. In this era, every project launch signifies a massive withdrawal of funds and the emergence of a "ghost town." If projects cancel this model, they will fall into an even more passive situation. In this dilemma, users can only seek new habitats.

III. Public Chains

Ethereum developed in the wilderness era by relying on technological paths and a commitment to decentralization, which later formed such a vast ecosystem. However, the path to success varies in each era. If we were to look back ten years, who would have thought that Tencent could not replicate a short video platform, while Taobao was ultimately eliminated by an e-commerce platform filled with cutthroat competition? Similarly, two years ago, I could not have imagined that Solana would one day truly trip the giant. But the fact is, in this stagnant application layer era, marketing and practicality outweigh so-called technological faith.

Two days ago, the Ethereum Foundation (EF) released three articles reaffirming Ethereum's future vision and foundation management structure. The key information revealed is not complex: first, the decentralization of EF's power, strategically intervening in projects when necessary and proactively withdrawing when not needed. Second, the restructuring of EF's leadership to enhance execution efficiency and strengthen communication with the community. Third, maintaining a technical path of sharding expansion while exploring RISC-V as a replacement for EVM. Although the overall tone still feels somewhat puritanical, EF has indeed lowered its proud posture.

But is this really Ethereum's problem? I can only say it is related but not absolute. The aforementioned changes mainly focus on user dissatisfaction with EF; the unwillingness to integrate into the secular world is also a root cause of Ethereum's issues, and this person is naturally Vitalik. Not understanding or wanting to understand Meme is not wrong, but the mistake lies in Vitalik still playing an absolute leadership role in Ethereum. A project with a market cap of 220 billion led by a somewhat willful and idealistic young man, who is unwilling to accept the mainstream culture in the current circle, inevitably leads to a sense of desolation. However, fortunately, among the many aloof Layer 2s, there is still a spark like Base that can tussle with Solana. If I were part of EF, I would definitely apply for some external support from CB.

Looking at BNB from a non-conspiracy perspective, at least CZ, another leader who does not understand Meme, is doing his utmost to embrace these concepts. During this period after his release from prison, he has also brought forth hot tracks like DeSci, but the lack of a basic foundation in the West makes each of BNB's booms seem somewhat fleeting.

Solana's victory lies in its lower posture. After the SBF scandal, Solana is no different from a child who has lost parental protection. In the face of the giant Ethereum, it must seize every opportunity. Starting with the catalyst of Silly Dragon, followed by various super Memes, Dapps, and PayFi. In the past, we often joked that Solana was a single-player chain, but in terms of its inclusiveness and support for the ecosystem, it appears to be more decentralized.

It is not Pump.fun that has turned Solana around; rather, Pump.fun can only be born from the soil of Solana. This is reminiscent of the relationship between Uni and Ethereum years ago. The core marketing concept of Solana is that it is the first chain for non-technical users: civilian, easy to use, and efficient. As Crypto moves towards Western mainstream users today, pragmatism reigns supreme, and the common people prevail. Solana is indeed suitable to become the first chain.

Conclusion

I have omitted the stories about marketing regarding NFTs and GameFi here. If both can be revived in the future, I may add them later. The narrative of the crypto world continues to evolve amidst the tug-of-war between technological idealism and human greed. The rise of tokens, the prosperity of projects, and the revival of public chains all fundamentally originate from a successful marketing effort. In the past, we listened to technological narratives, but now we must integrate into the secular world.