The industry generally agrees that the common approach is to have influential figures promote tokens—whether through certain platforms or the influence of KOLs. This method is indeed not ideal, but it seems to have become the mainstream path in reality.



For example, if I want to run a newsletter dedicated to exploring the potential of old projects, a reliable way to promote it is to leverage my own fan base or find voices that can reach the target audience for collaboration. The problem is, this reliance on personal endorsement essentially ties the success or failure of the project to individual influence. Although there seems to be no better alternative, the limitations of this mechanism are quite obvious—ultimately, those with existing influence tend to benefit the most, while truly promising projects are more likely to be overlooked.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 6
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
CryptoPunstervip
· 6h ago
I'll just say it, this routine is just a beauty contest. Coins that look good are natural winners, while ugly ones, even if they have mining, are pointless. Honestly, it's still those fans who are harvesting the leeks while casually taking down projects. Truly good projects? Sorry, no one is paying attention.
View OriginalReply0
ValidatorVikingvip
· 6h ago
ngl, the whole kol-backed token shilling model is basically asking for consensus failure. you're centralizing narrative around individual nodes instead of letting stake economics do the work—that's not how resilient systems operate, fr.
Reply0
PrivacyMaximalistvip
· 6h ago
This is the reality. The Matthew Effect is thriving in Web3 as well. KOL endorsements are indeed effective, but ultimately it's a false proposition. Wait, if this continues, won't it become centralized? To put it simply, there are still too few players, and a true market discovery mechanism has not yet formed.
View OriginalReply0
potentially_notablevip
· 6h ago
Basically, it's the Matthew Effect—those with fans gain more fans, and good projects without visibility are doomed to fail. Real dark horse projects never get the chance to be seen. This system has been rotten for a long time, but there's nothing anyone can do about it.
View OriginalReply0
MeltdownSurvivalistvip
· 6h ago
Basically, right now, volume equals truth. Whether a project is good or not depends on who is hyping it. KOL endorsements are basically beauty contests; they choose popularity, not technology. This pattern needs to change, or else big V influencers will always eat the meat while small projects drink the soup.
View OriginalReply0
GlueGuyvip
· 6h ago
This is the current state of Web3, to put it simply, an upgraded version of the Matthew Effect... Those with fans are more likely to be exploited. No matter how good the project itself is, it needs someone to promote it. Without endorsements, even potential stocks go unnoticed. Wait, how can small projects without KOL support survive? Honestly, I can't find a way to break the deadlock.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)