In 1981, 16-year-old Shi Yongxin entered the nearly forgotten Shaolin Temple. At that time, there were only 9 monks in the temple, struggling to survive by farming and incense offerings. The turning point came a year later: the movie (Shaolin Temple) starring Jet Li exploded nationwide, and the ancient temple overnight became the focus of public attention.

Shi Yongxin precisely captured this "mindset dividend." He did not invent Kung Fu and is not the most skilled, yet he accomplished a cross-era brand positioning: he deeply embedded the mindset imprint of "Shaolin Temple = Chinese Kung Fu" into the minds of global audiences.

In the following decades, he systematically organized martial arts classics, promoted performances abroad, carried out cultural dissemination, and created commercial licenses, transforming Shaolin from a religious site into a global entry point of "Kung Fu cognition." More importantly, this cognition goes beyond just "cultural influence" and ultimately monetizes into real money: tickets, IP, real estate, intangible asset management... cognition became the entry point for business.

This is the power of "group mindset": when you leave a clear, unique label in users' minds, you have the qualification to tell stories, set prices, and exist long-term.

How significant is the relationship between group mindset and Web3 projects?

You might ask: What can a monk who has built a brand at Shaolin Temple for forty years teach Web3 projects?

I am showing you Shi Yongxin not because he understands live streaming or cultural IP, but because he accomplished something that almost all Web3 projects are striving for but rarely achieve: he established the definition of a keyword in the minds of global users.

Web2 is about business, of course, focusing on market share, i.e., your vertical track and your user share volume. Because traditional business, whether in valuation or the business itself, is inseparable from direct competition in the market after the product is launched. However, in my opinion, for Web3 projects, the role of "occupying group mindset" greatly exceeds "actual market share."

But "focusing on group mindset" is not an empty phrase; it runs through every stage of the project from 0 to 1, especially at this critical node of TGE. After TGE, with liquidity, the operational logic of the project will change completely. You are no longer just telling stories and attracting attention, but facing real market pricing, arbitrage, and games. This shift is very drastic, and if you are unprepared, all the heat and expectations in the early stage may rapidly collapse within days.

Therefore, project parties must think in advance: what kind of user mindset should you occupy before the TGE? What narrative should be told? What position should you place yourself in the users' minds?

Next, let's discuss in detail.

Before the TGE, how should the project party build "group mindset"?

For most Web3 projects, the TGE is the first time they stand on the public market stage. But what truly determines success or failure is actually before the TGE. This stage is your golden window to occupy user mindset. It is not only about whether the token can successfully go online, but also about whether you can use this "collective attention moment" to plant a cognitive label in users' minds that can be remembered long-term.

How you clarify the project’s positioning during this period, solidify trust, and stabilize expectations will determine whether you can gain truly valuable early participants. Otherwise, what you may be waiting for is not a start but an end.

I usually suggest projects that haven't had a TGE to first conduct a "three mental questions" self-check.

1. In the users' minds, which Tier do you belong to?

Are you the top player in this field? Or just a marginal project? Behind this is actually a very realistic formula:

User perception of your project's Tier = Expectation value of your TGE = Willingness to invest time to follow you = Your actual data performance, etc.

Your actual data performance and user participation often reflect the users' subjective perception of whether you are "worth betting on." These do not solely stem from what you have done, but more from how you "appear to be in which tier."

2. What exactly do users remember about you?

This may be one point that Web3 entrepreneurs often overestimate about themselves. Many teams present their projects with tight logic and clear structure, but after listening for twenty minutes, I still ask: "So what is your breakout point?"

Reality is harsh. In this market with extremely fragmented attention, countless projects promote daily, so don’t expect users to truly understand you. They will only remember a few keywords that can evoke associations and generate emotions. Therefore, you must simplify, ultimately distilling three things that users can "take away": easy to remember, can inspire imaginations of making money, and related to future explosive potential.

In plain language, this is the ability that most projects lack.

3. Can group trust hold steady?

How to create a project that is trusted by users? This is the easiest point to overlook and also the most easily penetrable layer.

Even if you are technically strong and have a compelling narrative, once users begin to question your persona, team, and behavior patterns, trust will collapse, and the mindset will automatically detach.

Trust collapse is often not due to major events but rather the accumulation of seemingly trivial small matters. For example, when users ask a question and no one replies, they ask multiple times without any response; rewards that were promised are delayed without explanation; someone in the community starts to question, but the team collectively plays dead or coldly says, "We will discuss internally"; or sometimes, while the project appears to be communicating well externally, it is rumored behind the scenes that "this is just an arbitrage scheme."

Each of these may seem trivial, but this feeling of "saying one thing and doing another" can gradually puncture users' initial trust, especially among the earliest supporters. They were originally your most valuable assets, genuinely believing in your story, but once a crack in trust appears, they leave the fastest and are the least likely to come back.

Just as when the world mentions Chinese Kung Fu, most people's first reaction is not Wing Chun, Bajiquan, or Tai Chi, but rather: Shaolin. Wing Chun is not bad, but it has not encountered its Shi Yongxin. You need to be the one who establishes collective mindset for the project.

After the TGE, the project officially enters the status of a "financial asset."

After the TGE, the project is no longer just a product, vision, or story, but becomes a financial asset with price, liquidity, and secondary trading. Whether you are valuable, worth buying, or can rise, begins to be validated in the most public and cold manner.

First to change is the user structure. Those early users who once discussed ideals, ran test nets, and were active in the community have also transformed. They are now both users and traders. And a larger wave of traders is just entering the market. They are not here to "listen to your story" but to ask a more direct question: "Does your coin have any profit opportunities?"

There are very few in Web3 that are "irreplaceable products." Even if you do 20% or 30% better than competitors, as long as the coin price does not move, and the market does not have waves, you will still be quickly abandoned. Users will not give you time and patience to grow; they will immediately pursue the project that "seems to be able to rise more."

Therefore, project parties must answer a question directly: Why should others buy your coin?

Behind this actually corresponds to three typical user mindset models:

Low-tier players: My product is good. Users: Whether it’s good or not doesn’t matter; anyway, I’m not afraid to buy.

The most common psychology in such projects is: "We have leading technology, good product experience, and a serious team." But the market won't reward you just because you are trying hard.

User reactions are usually: "No matter how well you say it, is there volatility? No? Then I dare not buy."

This is a classic example of "the separation of product value and financial value." In Web3, with only products and no price elasticity, it cannot support user trust. You can be a builder, but in the eyes of users, you are just a "coin without expected differences."

The reality is that product experience is no longer a scarce commodity, but price expectations that can attract attention are.

So you need to understand: what you think you are building is actually competing for the mental entry of financial emotions.

Mid-tier players: I have good news, I will pump the price. Users: I’ll speculate in the short term and quickly run away with the profits.

The vast majority of Web3 users are short-term speculators. They do not expect to build together long-term, but as long as you can pump the price, have rhythm, and good news, they will participate.

They are not believers, nor are they community evangelists. But as long as you create "tradeability," they will come in for a round.

This is not a bad thing. On the contrary, this indicates that you have made "noise." Users know you are a project worth trading, even if they cannot hold on forever, it is still worth staking out.

As long as you can make a few effective pumps, the market will begin to assume that you are a "hot coin." Your token will be added to users' watchlists, and a group of people will specifically wait for your next move.

From no one paying attention → to some participation → to some staking out, this is the gradual process of establishing "price elasticity mindset" in Web3.

High-tier players: Make users feel that "this coin is worth keeping; if I sell, I won't be able to get on the bus again."

The most ideal, and also the hardest to establish, user mindset is when users, during liquidation, actively choose to keep your coin. What comes to their mind is not "Can I make quick money?" but rather: "This project, I might still use it in the next round." "This coin, once it goes up, I might not be able to buy it back."

To reach this level, the project must establish a complete "trust × expectation × feedback" cycle, meeting at least four conditions:

· The project has a clear long-term direction, and the narrative doesn’t jump around.

· Product progress is rhythmic, and users see hope;

· The project party has good news, and the coin price is not weak.

· The coin price has resilience, creating an emotional elasticity of "if it goes up, there is more to discuss; if it goes down, it can be pumped again;"

Such tokens may not surge every day, but users know in their hearts that "you are an asset worth participating in long-term," naturally leading to holding, spreading, and maintaining.

SUI: A real case of mindset reversal.

Take one recently placed in my long-term targets: $SUI. Let's break it down.

SUI has a luxurious team (the product research and development team of Facebook's Meta project), and its multi-billion dollar valuation in the primary market has also become an object of FOMO for various investment institutions. To be honest, I thought SUI's performance was not good at the beginning of TGE; the overall feeling in the community was that the project party was arrogant and not close to the community. Until a year and a half ago, SUI suddenly realized the importance of the community, continuing to promote the ecosystem while engaging the community. The secondary level due to regulatory issues will not be elaborated on.

What happened afterward is known to everyone. Suddenly, SUI became the "small SOL" in the market's mindset, entering the list of assets users are willing to hold long-term.

In fact, Sui has already experienced two events this summer that tested market confidence: one was at the end of May when the ecological project Cetus encountered a security incident, leading to about $223 million in liquidity being depleted; the second was at the beginning of July when 44 million tokens, worth nearly $200 million, were unlocked, marking one of the largest releases of the entire quarter.

According to the usual rhythm, this kind of chain reaction of negatives should have led to a price collapse and community sentiment breakdown. But the result was the opposite: SUI not only was not abandoned by the market but actually rose to $4.39 the day before yesterday, reaching a new high since February this year and becoming one of the hottest projects in the sector.

Why did it hold up? The key was not only that the Sui team did not avoid negative situations like hacker incidents but also quickly took responsibility. What is truly important is that, over the past year, Sui has slowly changed users' perceptions of it through actions, gradually transforming its previously criticized "arrogant and indifferent" image into one of a "trustworthy and long-term bet-worthy" project.

Taking the ecological project Cetus being attacked as an example, although this risk was triggered by a third-party smart contract, Sui was not the direct responsible party. However, the team did not shift blame; they not only immediately suspended related contracts, froze two involved wallets, collaborated with Sui to initiate a voting process for verification nodes, but also worked with the Sui Foundation to arrange loans to raise compensation funds, promising "full reimbursement" to the victims. Ultimately, 90.9% of the validators voted to support the release of $162 million in frozen assets, and the compensation plan was successfully passed.

The whole process is transparent, swift, and has strong execution power, making the outside world realize that this team can withstand pressure and is willing to back it up at critical moments.

It demonstrates that as long as you establish a clear mental anchor point in the early stage and continue to deliver after TGE, the market will give you time and space.

Trust is the only direction I am willing to bet on.

Many projects come to me for marketing, but the projects I cooperate with have always been very few. It's not that my standards are high, but I only want to invest my time and credibility in trustworthy teams.

Before I decide whether to assist, I will conduct a complete project due diligence, with only two core judgment criteria: Is this team worthy of my trust? Does its community believe in them?

If one point is not valid, then no matter how beautiful the narrative is, I will choose not to cooperate. I do not think I can help the project improve through one marketing campaign, nor will I trust a team that is irresponsible.

Because ultimately, the core competitiveness of Web3 projects is not the technical barrier, nor the amount of financing. It is whether you can leave a clear, credible, and worth-repeating position in the minds of a group of people.

This is the group mindset and also the true decisive factor in Web3.