This article is divided into three parts:
The importance of correct communication, including with regular users and partners. The introduction uses a general example and sets the context for the topic.
1-9-90: Part Two discusses the 1-9-90 guidance and my interpretation of it. This can be broadly applied to the self-starting of any community.
The difficulty of maintaining consistent communication in large groups, and the potential situation at a later stage when it may no longer be needed (Ethereum today). You can think of part three as a compelling overview of the past week’s Ethereum debates, which are also part of the same issue. Does 1-9-90 apply to Ethereum? is one of the issues discussed in this section.
1. Introduction: Common misunderstandings between developers and currency holders
Image source: Shenchao TechFlow
Token holders: "When will the currency be listed on the exchange? When will the currency be listed?"
Developer: "We are focusing on the product now, not this."
Token holders: "You don't care about the community at all, screw you!"
Developer: "You are just a short-term speculator, get out of here!"
You've seen this conversation before, right? This is what the chat looks like on Discord, Telegram and X for each project. I can assure you that both sides of this conversation are unhappy with each other. Coin holders are seen by developers as ordinary people who require rapid pumping and selling. At the same time, developers are viewed by coin holders as elitist assholes building castles in the air.
Both are right and wrong. They just can't communicate. They speak different languages. Token holders only care about the value of their assets, but do you think developers don’t care? Developers care too. As for whether developers can't handle the business side of things - that's another question that we'll leave aside for now.
PS: Please note that I am not idolizing either group because they are both right and wrong. Taking sides is a bad idea, you need to see the middle.
Quick response strategies to prevent the spread of negative emotions
Token holders: "When will the currency be listed on the exchange? When will the currency be listed?"
Response: "Can't respond publicly to this question yet, but of course it's an important one. You can join the discussion here. In the meantime, we're working on some cool product launches, so please have your say in this thread!"
This coin holder may not get involved further, but they also won’t stir up trouble. Their immediate need for response is met, and eventually they are likely to go out there and contribute their input. Win-win!
Experienced people will understand that they are getting a fairly superficial response, so you can’t make it sound too much like a chatbot. You need to direct people into some relevant and useful context so that you don't come across as though you're talking to a child. Again, simple pushback may work once or twice: it's a temporary fix until you have real answers. Repeated use of pushback will eventually have negative consequences. This strategy will not work if the accumulated anger reaches its peak. In this case, you must give a genuine and detailed response or accept a temporary decline.
In Web2, there are teams that deal with FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) prevention in social media. In restaurants, there are well-trained staff to handle even the most angry and drunk customers. Why do you think it's different here?
Conceptually, no developer has any obligation to coin holders (I ethically think they do, but that's another topic), however, no one has any recognition or monetary obligation to the developer.
You two, stop being so arrogant.
Structural solutions to underlying problems
Their goals are somewhat the same: token appreciation. However, their paths to achieving their goals are different, and therefore their timelines are also different. Developers need the value of the project to be high in order to have enough liquidity to exit the investment. Also, some developers, believe it or not, do want to create some cool stuff! On the other hand, holders only need an order depth of $100,000 to sell. So while their incentives are often aligned, their work time structures are not. This is obvious, I know.
Image source: Shenchao TechFlow
However, the best way their goals can be achieved is by working together. Developers need a lot of holders, and many holders need good developers to build. They can't coexist because if they tried... you'd end up with the current market. 90% of people engage in meme token gambling PvP, 1% are elitist hypocrites building castles in the air and vacationing in Switzerland for the summer, right? !
PS: There are indeed cases where developers give false promises, or holders become extremely passive because the market is all red. In these situations, there is nothing either side can do. You need to come together, align with the vision with your core supporters, and if you have to refresh the vision, keep your chin up and work hard. If you can produce good results without dying, you will become stronger. Speaking up only works if you are completely broken.
So, what exactly is 1-9-90, and what does it have to do with all this? I didn’t come up with this concept myself, and there’s even a page on it on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if my interpretation matches Wikipedia's meaning, but I've found it to be valid over many years of practice. No matter where.
2. 1-9-90 Community Building
To simplify understanding in the context of cryptocurrency, you can think of it as:
The 1% are developers, builders, teams, and creators.
9% are writers, funders, researchers, and angel investors who enthusiastically observe the industry and provide some commentary. Not really a team, but not newbies passing through either.
90% are random traders and speculators who never actually read the documentation. They only read the headlines, buy and sell tokens, and hold cryptocurrencies — but they don’t care about research. Just speculators and traders who like yellow tips. They are not stupid, they are just unwilling to "marry" any investment. For them, the fundamentals usually don't exist, they just want the charts.
All of these groups are important. In isolation, they all slowly die.
Speculation powers capital markets and investment, which in turn provides developers with the resources to build, which adds fundamentals to pure speculation, and so on. It operates like a living organism. Cut off part of it and it will wither.
Don't be so self-righteous!
Why does 1-9-90 work?
We can’t know everything and keep up with everything. We may not like overly generalized statistics and carefully crafted content on Netflix, but we can’t live without them. If we allowed multiple options for everything, our minds would explode. Especially in new startups. We want others to do the work for us. Those who dig through a pile of trash can find more refined gems, but sometimes it's okay to just follow the crowd.
Why care about what the 9% say? — because these funds, researchers, and angel investors are in many cases viewed as credible. They've been around for years, so they won't succumb to low-grade, cheap scam propaganda. Or at least that's the hope. Therefore, it is easier for traders and speculators to simply choose those assets that have the most reliable support groups behind them.
Why are 9% willing to act as a filter? - Because the better they filter, the more money they make. And they're likely to attract better long-term followers. If you can pick out gems earlier, you can get a better valuation and also signal to others that you have what it takes to be a gem hunter.
The 9% is the glue that connects the ultra-focused 1% of developers to the 90% of traders and holders who must embrace a more refined narrative. If I were to be specific about what 9% does, I would say it’s organic marketing and some warm referral business. Essentially injecting reputation and spice into an early unknown project.
1-9-90 stage looks like
These three do not usually align at the same time, only in bull markets. The goal is to always be 2/3 consistent, which is doable. By definition, 1% and 90% agreement is unlikely because the glue that gets the news to the 90% is the 9%. Therefore, you must always start with 1% + 9% and then progress from there.
The one exception is 1% + 90%, since you're building something completely easy to use for the 90%. This will be meme tokens, clicker games on Telegram, and similar phenomena. In these cases, the start-up phase does not require 9%. However, after these things come online, they need some sustainable alignment, which is not required during the launch phase because everything is happening in the hype.
This will be a typical venture capital project model, with teams, angel investors and community holders. A team (1%) starts a project, then (9%) drives it further and increases its visibility, and then a large number of traders and holders (90%) follow the project narrative and participate in it.
The 1% of developers start working on an idea and start making something.
They consult with friends, angel investors, capital allocators, researchers, etc. These are the 9% who get excited about certain ideas.
Then, for some reason, many of the ideas that the 1% and 9% of participants focused on, somehow ended up making their way into the 90%.
This is the general recipe and direction for all companies. This does not guarantee success, but this approach often achieves initial success. If you already have a network, the process of going from 0 to 1 is usually easy because no matter what you push, they will accept it and support it.
A bad example is Worldcoin, despite its very strange product and token strategy (no matter how drastic and dystopian it is), many of the "9%" support it and accept it into their community simply because of the founder network.
Lack of 9% Problem
You generally shouldn’t take the shortcut of “1% + 90%” and ignore the 9% in the middle. Because those 9% of people have a more long-term perspective than 90% of ordinary users, they are the foundation for the stable development of the project. If you end up with a hype-driven community and don't cultivate the 9%, in any market turmoil you'll probably be left with only the 1%. That's the problem with projects that rely solely on hype. This is a good startup strategy, but at the end of the day, you have to find your 9% or convert 90% of your members into the 9%. You can’t live without communicators and those who want to support you.
Image source: Shenchao TechFlow
Remember the sales of “fair launch” projects on the secondary market in 2020-2021? Some projects launch without any public sale and simply allocate market share to contributors and/or DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations). After a few weeks or months, they need funding to maintain operations and further develop the brand or protocol. Therefore, they conduct over-the-counter (OTC) transactions on the secondary market. These transactions may occur at different prices, but do not change the overall operating model. Ultimately, they had to struggle to find that 9% despite starting with a 1+90 pattern.
Another reason has to do with people's perceptions. If I were a researcher and I went into a chat group and the only content I saw were giveaways and airdrops – I would immediately think “this is a scam”. And I'm right most of the time. This is a time-saving way of overgeneralizing, but it works. Therefore, you typically want to keep it lean and produce technical content to grow the 1% + 9% first, before moving on to a larger strategy. Otherwise, you risk attracting the 90%, creating too much noise to neither attract the outside 9% nor convert your 90% into the 9%. Be careful!
This is especially dangerous for those click tokens and fast-launching IEO launch platforms. Fortunately for these founders, most of the time these projects are built and set up like scams, so they don’t care about community building at all.
Real life example: Ethereum conference
The most typical example of 1+9 interaction in the real world is the Ethereum conference. Many developers came here, talked to funds and angel investors looking for Alpha, and some new ideas emerged as a result. Those 9%, the funds and angel investors, may love crazy dreams and ideas, but at the end of the day, they are more desperate to make money than the 1%, so they need to check with the 90% that any given narrative currently has How much is needed, or how much may be needed in the future.
The 1% + 9% can hard sell something to the 90%, but it’s harder than expected. Forcing this is difficult. You need some fundamentals and data to back up your claims: this isn't always easy. You can think of Celestia as an example of a well-designed, slightly forced segment, looking at valuation. I'm not dissing it, they are really smart people, but pushing a new narrative to over $10 billion and sustaining it for a few months is not easy. 90% of people know nothing about DA and they certainly don’t think it’s a $10+ billion market.
Regardless, the problem arises when 9% of people get too self-absorbed. This happens when they only hang out with the 1% and forget to check reality with the 90%. Then you end up with closed parties of developer elitism from which no one benefits. It's important to focus on reality, otherwise everyone will be affected.
Enduring optimism and dreams are great, but pursuing them too much is not.
How to maintain 1-9-90 consistency beyond the launch phase
Since nothing rises forever, you will experience some moments of rupture in consistency and belief in the future, even if you have a perfect 1+9. In those moments, you need to analyze why. Did the team stop working, or did the market just turn red? Are developers still working, but are they building castles in the air that not even 9% of the population can understand?
Image source: Shenchao TechFlow
These are some of the questions you need to check your emotions. If the team is working and the narrative is complete, chances are 1+9 is consistent. So they need to keep building when the market is down and that'll be fine. There's nothing you can do here.
In times of crisis, you can simply talk to your partners, let them know some new details, and reaffirm their biases if needed. No one has complete faith in anything new at first, but time creates strength in a brand and a vision. Nurture it first and then it will happen naturally. This can actually be applied to trading as well: when during a bear market all coins were falling and MATIC was the only one to rise slightly, traders started promoting it as a “green haven for all markets”. Indeed!
You must never let the 9% and 90% clutter. This means developers face complete alienation. You need a core team to talk to angel investors and researchers, and you need angel investors and researchers to know how to get the message to the 90%. By the way, this is not some kind of pyramid, it's just the way information travels between individuals. This is a fact.
"Actions speak louder than words" and "the best technology wins" are both true. The opposite is true when marketing is done well with too much (good) bad talk or poor technology. Humans, and therefore markets, are not rational.
Checks and balances among groups
1%: May become too complacent with their success, become too elitist, and have a high opinion of themselves. The more capital they acquire, the further away reality checks become and thinking becomes overly optimistic and comfortable.
9% of people: Should have done research but ended up knowing only snippets (like me). The problem is that they focus too much on themselves and waste founders’ time explaining things — otherwise, they risk spreading false narratives and ideas. These people tend to talk a lot because, for many of them, having an opinion is their job. Easily become false.
90% of people: No problem! They bear all the risks and receive the least resources. Of course, their patience and survivability are at their lowest, but that's also because they don't have a golden cushion when developers decide to take matters into their own hands and take the money.
Now let’s apply this playbook to Ethereum… wait, maybe it’s too late? !
3. Ethereum: Vitalik vs DeFi vs Ethereum Foundation
Over the past few days, there has been a lot of controversy and dissatisfaction within the Ethereum community. This isn't surprising; people are just confused and can't find a way to express their confusion. They have been working for over 3 years since the last cycle but there is no new volume or users buying their assets so everyone is frustrated. This is just a fact. I'm not proposing reasons or solutions - that's for another article. I'm just stating the current situation here.
Image source: Shenchao TechFlow
Amid this debate, some have attempted to engage in rational discussion. For example:
Vitalik (1%) expressed his concerns about DeFi. Check out this post, it's well written and there's more in that Thread. He may have been too focused on his overly ambitious vision, but he was polite and provided context. He hopes to think bigger and inspire others to see beyond what we see today, not to be held back by what we have but to look to the future. This is what it means to have a vision. He doesn't need to be right all the time either, he's not the owner of Ethereum.
The Ethereum Foundation (1%) was silent on the topic of selling for a few years, and then Aya made a somewhat insensitive reply. Not because she said anything bad or wrong, but because she "didn't read the mood" because EF is so far removed from the problems ordinary people face. However, see here for more details, EF did and still does a lot of transparency work.
DeFi founders (1-9%) are confused because even though they are powerful and don’t care about external support, they also want some support, at least not disparaging finance at every step, which Vitalik has done almost jokingly before . Maybe he did too much and ended up making people unhappy.
A breakdown in communication is what is happening. The Ethereum Foundation and Brain developers are too focused on the future, so it sounds like they don't care about today's problems. While they do care, their thinking has gone further. This is a difficult thing for the other side because they don't have as much background understanding of all the thinking and thought processes. What you end up with is: (the communication wall as shown below)
Image source: Shenchao TechFlow
Is there a structural problem with 1, 9 or 90 here?
As mentioned earlier, any criticism is theoretically valid, but for what specific reasons? Is it because developers are being marginalized, or is it the 9% who don't know what's going on, or is it just the 90% complaining about the price? This is what we need to explore.
Let’s first look at the 1% case
Are the developers actively working on it? Yes. Do they participate in public discussions? Of course yes. Are different development teams working on different projects at the same time? The same is true. Are there events and hackathons to attract new developers? Same thing. Is there a systematic way to solve the fragmentation problem of Layer 2 now, especially after the scalable functionality part is solved? Yes. So I don't think the 1% has a problem.
Next a quick look at 90% of cases
They are well aware that Ethereum is an important asset and that the market may decline. They're confused as to why a significant number of the 9% are confused as well. Unwarranted panic can lead to real structural problems.
Finally, let's look at the 9% case
I personally believe that some of those who were once part of the 9% have now become sensation traders. There's nothing wrong with that, but we can no longer think of them as the real 9%. They stop digging and just follow the headlines. Mistaking them for the 9% can fool you into thinking there is a structural problem. If you want to confirm this, you can ask the developers. If developers feel the same way, there may indeed be some problems.
Image source: Shenchao TechFlow
Market turmoil turns some 9%ers into 90%ers. And the 1% keep working!
No disrespect intended, but if you look at Layer 2 and conclude that “fragmentation is killing Ethereum, it’s over,” while ignoring all the research on scalable functionality — that’s a skill issue.
Are efforts underway or issues being ignored?
Clearly, the 9% are understandably confused. Ethereum is growing and it has had a Layer 2 roadmap for many years, which has resulted in fragmentation during its development. When you go modular, it's normal to have problems connecting the pieces. This makes sense as long as the goals (scalable functionality, larger platform) are valid.
So, I understand if someone feels bearish in the short term, but it's an intellectual lie to think that "Ethereum is dead and not doing scalable functionality at all." Those 9% who engage in this argument are simply promoting their alternatives and are turning into the 90%. Be aware of inflammatory Twitter users.
I am not protecting my assets as this post will not affect anyone. I'm happy to see and accept that there are structural problems, but other than "a certain EF member got some advisory positions" and "EF sold some ether, which is less than 0.1% of the total circulating supply" - I Can't see any more arguments. You can do better.
But should the 9% be cared for anyway, as the guidance manual states?
I further contend: It is no longer necessary and no longer possible.
Separation of state and church. Forgot leadership? Forget the 9%.
Image source: Shenchao TechFlow
Bitcoin and Ethereum are on the left, and all other chains are on the right. Therefore, you cannot apply the same rules to both. Progressive decentralization, friends.
Ethereum is clearly in its network phase. At this stage, asking for "alignment to the roadmap" is a misunderstanding of how things work. This does not mean that attempts at general economic alignment are unnecessary, but they are happening on an ad hoc basis for now. If you look at the first image, consider the main orange connecting points as the main Ethereum teams: clients, large funds with research departments, interconnected protocol ecosystems, etc. As long as they align with each other occasionally, that's fine. So ask yourself: If you don't know what the orange ones are doing, then you're probably not looking deep enough. So this is a skill issue, not an ecosystem issue. Don't be too self-righteous.
Image source: Shenchao TechFlow
(See post for details)
All this discussion, criticism, etc. should happen. What's different this time is that too many of the best players in the past have become extremely radical and are causing chaos. Especially the general partners of some funds (you know who I’m talking about). Most are people who are pushing their own Layer1 crap bets. If they think other Layer1s are better, support them, etc., that's fine. However, to do so at the expense of a fictional argument is intellectual suicide. Like this:
vitalik.eth：
Revenues come from factors such as borrowers and transaction fees. Yes, it worries me. Because it’s like an Ouroboros (self-biting snake): the value of cryptocurrency tokens is that you can earn income with them, and these income are paid by the people who trade cryptocurrency tokens.
Image source: Shenchao TechFlow
This isn't the first time we've seen large ecosystems find themselves in this situation. Fragmentation, different misaligned interests, etc., are really right in front of us right now. But rather than turning to a communist and centralized roadmap, perhaps a better path would be to elevate it all to a non-fragile state. Flowery words aside, none of this matters. DeFi, social, whatever it is — Vitalik’s opinion, the Ethereum Foundation’s opinion, or any guru’s opinion doesn’t matter.
So what to do?
Vitalik may be too elitist and want apps that don't exist yet or will never exist. People want more utility, and DeFi brings that.
The Ethereum Foundation could be more transparent, of course.
Ethereum’s narrative has become multi-faceted, so 9% of people struggle to understand a clear agenda and are confused.
But the answer is: it doesn't matter.
You can't and don't need to be perfectly aligned anymore
How many groups exist on Ethereum now? Client team? Venture capital fund? Promotion group? ——The answer is: a lot. When was the last time you needed the Ethereum Foundation’s (EF) approval or Vitalik’s blessing to build anything that wasn’t related to the core protocol? ——Never.
Contents in the picture:
I think people just want consistent transparency around fund transfers and sales to be able to deny cases that have been misattributed to the Ethereum Foundation.
It would be helpful to have a full-time communications staff who can write about strategy and narrative in a way that a general audience can understand. So far, the narrative around Ethereum is unclear (is it a sound currency, or a technology?), so what value should we give it? Wall Street.
Image source: Shenchao TechFlow
I'm not bashing Evan, his post makes sense and seems sincere. I'm just saying that while this is a reasonable request in general, in the case of Ethereum it cannot and should not be implemented. However, this is my personal subjective opinion and may not be accurate.
EF can disband tomorrow and Vitalik can take the yacht and have fun - it doesn't matter. Even if transparency is an issue, even if Vitalik is wrong, what does it matter? Ethereum is, or should be, at a stage where the core initial team is no longer relevant. Therefore, the following attempt to turn this into some kind of "Ethereum cultural issue" is not valid. Culture is an open level playing field, not a centralized perspective. Bitcoin has been through similar tests before, so this is a true test of the strength of the theory.
Image source: Shenchao TechFlow
(See post for details)
In my experience and that of my friends in the crypto industry since 2017, no one has received any meaningful support or funding from Vitalik. He criticized ICOs during the boom and DeFi in 2020 – and that’s okay. He doesn't need to be right all the time. He had to be right about building community and being a visionary in 2015, 2017 and beyond...but at this point some people have formed an alliance against EF. This is great!
DeFi founders are not asking for his blessing or EF’s support. In fact, it was initially constructed through their objections. However, DeFi survives and thrives, so why ask for any blessings now? One thing to note is that as long as they don't make some core protocol changes that make DeFi less usable, everything is fine. For example, the gas cost of certain operations critical to DeFi. Basically pursuing their big vision at the expense of DeFi’s usability and growth.
Stop:
While I personally would like to see Ethereum used in industries outside of finance (which is already happening), there is still a lot of work and support needed for decentralized finance (DeFi) to grow rapidly. As I pointed out, DeFi can become the most empowering on-chain application for the mainstream.
Image source: Shenchao TechFlow
Well said. Letting the winners move on might be the right technical focus for EF and Ethereum builders. Even if "it's just finance."
So sensationalists can relax and stop blowing petty arguments into big issues.
jesse.base.eth：
Ethereum’s success has been due to the support of its high-level institutions and several surrounding powerful countries since its inception, as well as those intellectual leaders who are truly actively involved.
Ethereum is now going through the separation of church and state, a difficult but necessary phase of transformation that will ultimately lead to a more decentralized and resilient network of technology stacks, design standards, human and intellectual capital.
Similar to what happened after religious separation and the Enlightenment, Ethereum as an ecosystem will become stronger as it decentralizes authority, embraces religious diversity (like Singapore), and new builders de-prioritize political alignment , and instead focus on pragmatic development (this is exactly how DeFi summer started, and DeFi founders are pragmatic founders, who can be compared to Protestants).
Perhaps this is not a popular view, and I am more bullish on Ethereum when high-level figures and even Vitalik himself are publicly challenged.
Image source: Shenchao TechFlow
Another point about the diversity of opinions and teams in large networks.
Other points to consider
No matter what Vitalik says, people will always get angry. At some point, responding to angry X users will become negative unless they have a legitimate criticism. But if they're nitpicking every word out of resentment, then so be it. Still, I hope I can read the atmosphere. Vitalik is good at this, but not always.
The Ethereum Foundation has done a lot in terms of transparency, but it can be improved further. It doesn't matter if they don't because almost no one interacts with them directly. Therefore, this does not create a systemic problem that they do not need to face (9s forces this discourse to become a systemic problem). Maybe you can pay attention to other fast-growing players in the ecosystem.
Other foundations are spending far more than the Ethereum Foundation, and there are foundation presidents running venture capital funds (such as Solana), and there are even foundations that are almost buying meme coins (such as Avalanche). Again, there's a good side and a bad side to this, and I'm not trying to say "They've done worse, so it's okay to do something bad." No, I'm just saying that maybe the other chain pullers should sort out their own problems before they start screaming.
I hope you understand the importance of correct messaging and communication. These basic principles extend beyond raw technology to general community building and positioning yourself with other partners in the industry.
As for Ethereum, I hope I convinced you that holding hands is no longer necessary. No more leadership. No more top-down centralized roadmaps. So let people fight each other, exploit each other, and support the free market.
Also be careful who you listen to. 9% often becomes 90%. The exception is that 90% do not lie about their intentions, while 9% tend to spread untrue or misleading information in an attempt to gain profit through false propaganda.
[Disclaimer] There are risks in the market, so investment needs to be cautious. This article does not constitute investment advice, and users should consider whether any opinions, views or conclusions contained in this article are appropriate for their particular circumstances. Invest accordingly and do so at your own risk.
This article is reproduced with permission from: "Deep Wave TechFlow"
Original author: ivangbi
