The Dilemmas and Reflections on Community Building of Crypto Project Parties

Recently, many emerging crypto projects are facing a common challenge: tokens experience a drop in value right after their launch. To address this situation, some project parties have adopted strategies such as controlling the supply in advance and locking airdrops, trying to create better market performance in the early stages of token launch.

However, these practices seem to suggest that the project party equates its own community with potential selling pressure. This inevitably raises the question: Why has the community, painstakingly built by the project, ultimately become a source of selling pressure rather than a buying force that supports the price? If the community is merely a selling force, what is the point of the project party investing significant resources in building it?

In-depth analysis reveals that many project parties have a misunderstanding of community building. They often view community building as a necessary condition for listing on exchanges, rather than as a cornerstone for the long-term development of the project. This leads to "community" being simplified into a series of cold data metrics, such as the number of members and growth rate.

A mature community rapid growth model has been formed in the current market, which includes the use of task platforms, social media tools, and opinion leader matrices. These methods often attract users with appealing slogans such as "zero threshold participation" and "airdrop rewards." However, the downside of this practice is that it mainly attracts speculators who aim to "farm" rewards, rather than long-term supporters who genuinely recognize the value of the project.

If the project's goal is merely to list tokens quickly and exit, then this strategy is understandable. However, for projects that hope to develop in the long term, this approach may backfire.

Fundamentally, the reason why many project communities have become sellers rather than buyers today lies in the issues with the project party's positioning and growth strategy for the community from the very beginning. The project party views community members as data contributors, while community members see the project as a tool to obtain airdrops. This mutual distrust leads to both parties getting what they want, but unable to establish a long-term value consensus.

In this case, when the tokens are officially issued, the tokens obtained through airdrops naturally become a source of selling pressure. After all, for the project party, these distributed tokens are more like a cost paid to acquire user data rather than true assets.

To change this situation, the project party needs to rethink the essence and value of community building. Only by establishing a true value consensus and cultivating community members who are loyal and identify with the long-term vision of the project can the community become a driving force for project development, rather than a hindrance.