The Dilemma of Crypto Project Parties: The Conflict Between Community Building and Token Value

In the current cryptocurrency market, new projects generally face a severe challenge: the phenomenon of tokens experiencing a price drop immediately after launch. To address this issue, some project parties have adopted strategies such as controlling chips in advance, enforcing staking and locking, or limiting airdrops, in an attempt to create a favorable market performance for the tokens in their early stages.

However, these practices reflect a deeper issue: the project party seems to equate its community with a potential source of selling pressure. This inevitably raises the question of why the community that has been painstakingly built ultimately becomes a source of selling rather than buying? If the community is merely a source of selling, what is the point of the project party investing a great deal of effort into building the community?

In fact, many project parties have a distorted understanding of community building. They often view community building as a means to meet the coin requirements on trading platforms, rather than a true value creation process. This leads to the "community" being simplified into cold data metrics, with project parties pursuing rapid growth in member numbers rather than improvement in quality and loyalty.

A mature community growth model has already formed in the market, including various task platforms, social media tools, and collaboration with opinion leaders. These methods attract a large number of users through low-threshold participation and airdrop rewards, achieving so-called "organic growth." However, the downside of this growth model is that it mainly attracts users who aim to obtain short-term benefits, rather than supporters who genuinely recognize the value of the project.

If the project's goal is merely to quickly launch coins and exit, then this community-building model is undoubtedly efficient. However, for projects seeking long-term development, this approach is actually digging their own graves.

At its core, the reason why the current community has become a selling market rather than a buying market lies in the original intention of the project party regarding the positioning and growth strategy of the community. When the project sees community members as data contributors, and community members see the project as a tool for obtaining airdrops, there is a lack of genuine value recognition and long-term commitment between the two parties. In this case, the tokens issued by the project essentially become a form of debt, rather than an asset.

Therefore, when the Token is officially issued, these airdrop holders who lack value recognition naturally tend to cash out quickly, leading to a large selling pressure in the market. This phenomenon not only affects the short-term performance of the Token but may also jeopardize the long-term development prospects of the project party.

To change this situation, the project party needs to rethink the essence and goals of community building. A truly valuable community should be based on a common vision and mutual benefit, rather than short-term exchanges of interests. Only when the project can attract and retain supporters who truly identify with its value proposition can it build a stable and positive community ecosystem that provides strong support for the project's sustainable development.