Is the community the culprit of the project's loss? Crypto project teams are digging their own graves.
1/ Project team's flashy operations
Currently, new projects commonly face a shared problem: the token launches at a loss. As soon as the token goes live, there is all selling pressure with no one to buy.
To avoid such a situation and create a seemingly better market for the token at launch, the project team has also invented a series of 'flashy operations':
Massive control of funds through insider trading before the TGE;
Airdrops and staking locked up before the market opens;
Or simply not issue airdrops through the so-called witch method.
2/ Community = Buy-side or Sell-side
Interestingly, this behavior of the project team subconsciously equates their community with the sell-side of the token, with the selling pressure from community airdrops being the culprit for disappointing token price performance.
So the question arises, why does the community that the project team has worked hard to build end up being a sell-side instead of a buy-side?
If the community is merely a sell-side, why would the project team invest 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 the project team is merely to provide a report to the exchange, as it is a condition for listing on exchanges and a bargaining chip for better exchanges.
Thus, the 'community' has been quantified into a series of cold numbers, pursuing the number of community members, rapid growth, and aiming for 500k achievements within a month after a cold start.
Creating such things is actually not difficult. On the contrary, it is currently the most mature GTM strategy in the Crypto market, with a complete chain and tools to help project teams achieve such goals.
Various task platforms similar to Galxe, Tg traffic tools, KOL matrices, etc. Mainly leverage terms like 'zero-threshold participation', 'airdrop without effort', and 'one fish, multiple bites' to attract a large number of users looking for rewards, ultimately achieving so-called 'organic growth'.
But the results of this approach are also evident: the profile of community members has been targeted from the beginning to be reward-seekers, ultimately resulting in a community composed largely of users characterized as 'reward hunters'.
If the project's goal is merely to quickly launch tokens and then exit, then this approach is flawless, even highly efficient, with no detours.
4/ Why is the community a sell-side instead of a buy-side?
Returning to the initial question: why has the community now become a sell-side instead of a buy-side?
The answer is simple: from the very beginning, the project team's positioning of the community and GTM strategy has already determined the outcome.
The goal of the project is to find people to boost their exchange data. The initial purpose of community members participating is to earn airdrops by contributing data and labor. Both sides understand that the other has no real value, yet they each take what they need while pretending to be confused. The tokens distributed are essentially debts for the project, an expense for providing data to users, not assets.
So when the TGE occurs, what else can these airdrops become if not sell-side?
