Is the community the culprit of the token crash? Crypto project teams are digging their own graves.

1/ Project team's tricks

The new projects are generally facing a common problem: the token crashes immediately after listing. As soon as the token is launched, there is a sell-off, but no one is buying.

To avoid this situation and make the token's initial launch appear better, project teams have invented a series of 'tricks':

  • Significant control of funds through insider trading before TGE;

  • Airdrop staking lock-in before the market launch;

  • Or directly use the so-called witch method to avoid issuing airdrops.

2/ Community = buy-side or sell-side

But interestingly, the project team's behavior subconsciously equates their community with the token's sell-side, and the sell-off from community airdrops is the main culprit for disappointing token prices.

So the question arises, why has the community that the project team worked hard to build ultimately become a sell-side rather than a buy-side?

If the community is just a sell-side, why are the project teams still investing so much effort into building the community?

3/ Assembly line community factory

In fact, many project teams do not understand the community and still have not figured out why they need to build a community. Often, the starting point for project teams is simply to provide a report to exchanges, as it is a requirement for listing on exchanges and a bargaining chip for better exchanges.

Thus, the 'community' is quantified into a series of cold numbers. They pursue the number of community members, seek rapid growth, and aim to achieve 500k results within a month after the community's cold start.

Creating such things is actually not difficult. On the contrary, this is currently the most mature GTM strategy in the Crypto market, with a complete chain and tools to help project teams achieve such goals.

Such as various task platforms similar to Galxe, TG traffic tools, KOL matrices, etc. Mainly through phrases like 'zero-threshold participation', 'airdrop without any effort', 'one fish can eat multiple meals', to attract a large number of profit-seeking users, ultimately achieving so-called 'organic growth'.

However, the result of this strategy is also evident: the profile of community members has been directed from the start to be a group of profit-seekers, ultimately attracting a large number of users characterized as 'profit-seekers' to form what the project team calls the 'community'.

If the project's goal is simply to quickly list the token and then exit, then this strategy is flawless, and can even be described as extremely efficient, without any detours.

4/ Why is the community a sell-side, rather than a buy-side?

Returning to the initial question: Why has the current community become a sell-side, rather than a buy-side?

The answer is simple, because from the very beginning, the project team’s positioning of the community and GTM strategy has already determined the outcome.

The project's purpose is to find these people to generate data for themselves. The initial goal for community members to participate is to earn airdrops by contributing data and labor. Both sides understand that the other has no real value, yet both take what they need, pretending to be confused. The tokens issued are essentially liabilities for the project, expenses for providing data to users, rather than assets.

So when TGE occurs, what else could these airdrops turn into if not sell-side?