Author: YBB Capital Researcher Zeke
1. Celebrity coins, from birth to marketing
Warren Buffett has continued the charitable legacy of his late wife, Susan Buffett, for 23 years, transforming the adoration of a group of business elites into a globally recognized 'time auction,' creating the most iconic 'sky-high 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 exploration of SocialFi has been going on for over seven or eight years, but in most cases, it has been more noise than actual impact. After all, in the on-chain world, the importance of speculative trading often outweighs this 'fragile social' established by tokens. Most users actually care less about the exclusive insights shared by celebrities and more about the 'volume and price' of the celebrities. Conversely, for top celebrities, the profit from the SocialFi platform is too small and cumbersome. For KOLs, the scarce influence is rendered awkward and foolish on a price-transparent platform with few users.
The lack of accumulation makes the road of SocialFi currently impractical, so the monetization path of celebrity value in Web3 needs to be differentiated, transitioned, and then evolved. A paid subscription community and an X account with a blue badge—these Web2 combinations with accumulation are what KOLs currently need. The conversion path of top celebrities' value has always been bumpy, like a large enterprise with millions of products waiting to be dumped; To B is not cost-effective, and To C has no carrier.
The transition from the monetization of time to the monetization of influence is a relatively successful first step in the exploration of this path, with NFTs playing this role for a long time. However, it is clear that the characteristics of NFTs, which emphasize scarcity, fixed-price sales, and lack of liquidity, do not satisfy both buyers and sellers. This method of peddling souvenirs has essentially 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 opportunity. Last year, the token issuance craze of Pump.fun swept the crypto circle, and the Meme trend coincided with the American presidential election, during which various grassroots-issued presidential coins began to emerge. The ultra-high growth and popularity made some behind-the-scenes manipulators in the crypto circle smell opportunity, inducing or signing contracts with real celebrities to issue coins, while the rest was left to them to operate. This sounds a bit similar to the cooperation model between MCN agencies and internet celebrities, but the actual situation is extremely violent. From Caitlyn Jenner (the American Olympic decathlon champion and one of Trump's biggest fans) to President Milei's LIBRA. Starting with a tweet and concluding with a vertical drop of a K-line. The entire process can take several days at most, or as little as a few hours to complete the harvesting. Then the script often involves social media influencers launching emergency 'investigations,' and the issuing team tossing responsibilities among themselves, ultimately leading to nothing, giving birth to the concept of celebrity coins amidst this chaos.
However, this path has indeed become very clear. Just from the initial effectiveness, the low-threshold distribution channel of Meme can be called perfect, but what about the celebrity Meme, which lacks intrinsic value, when the heat disappears 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 track, but what story can celebrity coins tell?
Trump's answer is quite clichéd; he wants to give the top 220 holders of TRUMP a free 'presidential time,' 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 rolled back to 'time.' In my opinion, this plan can save the short-term urgency of token unlocks but cannot sustain the long-term growth of token prices.
A sufficiently good Meme should emphasize emotions and narratives rather than empowerment. The value of celebrity coins lies not in the insights and time of celebrities, but in the stories of celebrities and the emotions behind them. Trump's dinner invitation resembles the sale of a super-expensive Social Token; everything will dissipate once his presidential time ends. How to market TRUMP well is something Trump's crypto team might want to consult with Doge's minister, as Doge binds Musk with SpaceX and Tesla. 'To The Moon' is still engraved in the hearts of crypto users, as the people's currency makes holders believe 1Doge=1U, challenging traditional finance aligns with crypto's genes. In fact, every point is Musk using his power to sell emotions to the public, even if most of these stories remain unfulfilled. The marketing of celebrity coins still has a long way to explore; the meme-ification of personal influence shouldn't just be a tweet or a piece of good news.
2. The Evil Dragon
The project Blur is rarely mentioned anymore; the last time it was discussed was during the launch of the Blast point system.
As the narrative of NFTs fades, many stories have become the past, but the imprint left by Pacman in this circle will not disappear. Blur relied on a combination of 'Points + zero fees, royalties + social fermentation' to defeat OpenSea that year, completing a rural siege on the city with a PDD-style approach. The orange logo filled Twitter on airdrop day; I think no NFT player will forget it. From a marketing perspective, Blur's three-pronged strategy is unbeatable; it not only defeated rivals that other NFT platforms didn't dare to imagine but also prompted many users who had never played NFTs to join the score-swatting army, breaking multiple records in just a few months. Almost all Web3 projects after Blur regard this marketing template as a bible.
At that time, NFT players who had suffered from OpenSea for a long time were cheering, but Blur ultimately transformed from a dragon-slaying youth to an evil dragon. To begin with, Airdrop3 was my first experience of disgust towards Web3 incentive activities; Blur used a self-destructive approach to exchange for TVL and trading volume. At the start of the entire event, I had said that NFTs would accelerate their demise. The Bid For Airdrop mechanism encouraged users to place orders without actual purchases, leading to false demand and a spiral decline in prices. The mechanism attracted arbitrageurs rather than genuine buyers, and once the value of Blur's Token collapses, all blue chips must be buried together. Looking back at the death of NFTs from my perspective, Blur's Bid incentives initiated it, while Azuki's Elementals series launch concluded it. Of course, this can largely be attributed to NFTs never finding a suitable path (excluding Pudgy).
Then Pacman successively launched the NFT lending protocol Blend and the Ethereum Layer 2 Blast. The strategies of these two protocols basically continued the underlying strategy of Blur. Blend uses a lending point reward mechanism, where users can earn airdrop points by participating in NFT collateral lending, continuing the logic of 'trading is mining.' Blast adopts a 'deposit points + invitation points' model, where users can earn native Blast yields and airdrop points by staking ETH or stablecoins. The earning logic of the former relies on common earning methods in the lending market, such as lending interest and liquidation arbitrage. The latter involves staking ETH in DeFi protocols like Lido to earn yields. Pacman has built a self-circulating crypto bank through the locked ETH among the three, but the returns given to users are asymmetrical. Aside from Blur's early earnings being quite abundant, the subsequent incentive activities of projects basically announced the end of the airdrop era. Centralized points have turned all incentives into black boxes, with rules set arbitrarily, and the spontaneous play of points has been criticized by users.
What consequences has the point system triggered? First is false prosperity; when rewards are visualized, users lock assets into various protocols just to exchange for project tokens. Meanwhile, project parties can take these false user data and high TVL to raise funds everywhere, negotiating on the market, while VCs accustomed to measuring value by data suffer heavy losses. The second point is the hindrance of innovation; it’s better for projects to run activities well than to perform well, leading to truly technical projects that are buried if they do not understand marketing. The third point is the fragmentation of liquidity; truly valuable assets are locked in various protocols just to participate in this game that seems to carry no risk of loss. The fourth point, and the most important one, is that when the point system is launched, it is equivalent to openly issuing tokens; a large number of studios, retail investors, and whales flood in just to compete for a small cake. Either quantity or funds must be fought over, and retail investors often find their per capita distribution so small that it barely compensates for gas fees, marking the true end of the airdrop era.
Today, the point system is still the mainstream model in Web3, with 'point mining' fostering rampant speculation, while the Point Market amplifies this phenomenon. The incentive of airdrops has fundamentally changed the essence of early users and communities; the airdrop era initiated by Uni a few years ago was originally a good intention, promoting DeFi Summer while achieving genuine user retention and growth. In this era, every project launch signifies a major capital withdrawal and the emergence of a 'ghost town,' and if projects cancel this model, they will fall into an even more passive situation. In this dilemma, users can only seek new habitats.
3. Public Chains
Ethereum relied on technological paths and adherence to decentralization during the barbaric era, forming the vast ecosystem that followed. However, the successful path varies in different eras. If we had looked at it ten years ago, who would have thought that Tencent could not replicate a short video platform or that Taobao would eventually be eliminated by an e-commerce platform filled with knife-cuts in its user interface? Similarly, two years ago, I could not have imagined that Solana would one day actually trip the giant. But this is the reality; in this stagnant era of application layers, marketing and practicality prevail over so-called technical faith.
Two days ago, EF published three articles reiterating Ethereum's future vision and foundation management structure, revealing key information that is not complicated: first, the decentralization of EF's authority, strategically intervening in projects when necessary and withdrawing actively when not needed. Second, the restructuring of EF's leadership to enhance execution efficiency and strengthen communication with the community. Third, maintaining a differentiated expansion technical path while exploring RISC-V as a replacement for EVM. Although overall it still feels somewhat puritanical, EF has indeed lowered its arrogant posture.
But are these really Ethereum's problems? I can only say they are related, but not absolute. Some of the changes mentioned are mainly focused on users' dissatisfaction with EF, and the unwillingness to integrate into the secular world is also Ethereum's root problem, and this person is naturally Vitalik. Not understanding and not wanting to understand memes is not wrong, but the problem lies in Vitalik himself still holding absolute leadership over Ethereum. A project with a market value of 220 Billion is led by a somewhat willful and idealistic young person who is unwilling to accept the current mainstream culture in the circle, so the current loneliness is merely an inevitability. However, fortunately, among the aloof Layer 2s, there is still a spark like Base that can wrestle 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 theory perspective, at least CZ, who also doesn't understand memes, is trying his best to accept these concepts. During this period after his release from prison, he also brought out hot tracks like DeSci; however, the lack of a basic foundation in the West makes every prosperity of BNB seem a bit short-lived.
The victory of Solana lies in its lower posture. The Solana after SBF's crash is no different from a child losing parental protection. Faced with the giant Ethereum, it must seize every opportunity. Starting from the catalyst Silly Dragon, to later various super Memes, Dapps, and PayFi. In the past, we often joked that Solana was a standalone chain, but in terms of inclusiveness and support for the ecosystem, it appears to be more decentralized.
It is not Pump.fun that has turned Solana around, but rather that Pump.fun could only be born on the soil of Solana. This is reminiscent of the relationship between Uni and Ethereum a few years ago. The core philosophy of Solana's marketing is that the first chain for non-technical users should be Solana, which emphasizes being civilian, user-friendly, and efficient. In today's context of crypto moving towards mainstream Western users, pragmatism reigns supreme, and the common people are paramount. Solana is indeed suitable to become the first chain.
Conclusion
Regarding marketing stories, I will omit NFTs and GameFi here. If the two can be revived in the future, I may add them later. The narrative of the crypto world has evolved 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 essentially originate from a successful marketing effort. In the past, we listened to technical narratives; today, we must integrate into the secular.
