Community Strategy of the Project Party: Digging Their Own Grave or Creating Value?

In the current cryptocurrency market, new projects generally face the dilemma of breaking even immediately upon launch. Tokens encounter significant selling pressure right after being listed, yet no one is willing to take them on. To address this situation, some project parties have adopted various strategies in an attempt to create better market performance in the early stages after launch. These practices include controlling a large amount of tokens through internal channels before the token generation event (TGE), launching airdrop staking lock-up plans, or directly restricting the distribution of airdrops through certain means.

However, behind these practices lies a deeper issue: the project party seems to equate the community they have painstakingly built with a potential source of selling pressure. This raises the question, if that is the case, why invest so much effort in building a community? Shouldn't community members become the buying power that supports the project?

In fact, many project parties have a misunderstanding of community building. They often see community building as a necessary condition to meet the requirements of listing on exchanges, or as a bargaining chip to strive for better cooperation with high-quality exchanges. In this mindset, "community" is simplified to a series of cold numerical indicators, such as the number of members and growth rate. Project parties pursue explosive growth in community size in a short period of time, such as reaching 500,000 members within a month.

To achieve these goals, a mature growth strategy has already formed in the market, including the use of various task platforms, social media tools, and influencer networks. These strategies are often marketed with attractive slogans such as "zero threshold participation" and "airdrop benefits" to attract a large number of users and quickly realize what is known as "organic growth."

However, the drawbacks of this growth model are evident. It mainly attracts "pump and dump" groups that aim for short-term profits, rather than supporters who genuinely recognize the value of the project. If the only goal of the project is to quickly launch tokens and exit, then this strategy is indeed efficient and effective. But for projects that hope to develop in the long term, this is undoubtedly digging their own grave.

Back to the original question: Why do current community members often become sellers rather than buyers? The answer is actually quite simple; it is an inevitable result determined by the initial community positioning and market strategy of the project party.

When the project party views community members as tools for data brushing, and the main purpose of community members' participation is to earn airdrops, there is a lack of genuine value recognition between the two sides. The tokens issued by the project essentially become a form of debt, compensating users for their data provision and participation rather than being real assets.

Therefore, when the tokens are officially issued, these airdrops naturally turn into selling pressure. This outcome not only harms the long-term development of the project party but also wastes the opportunity to build a truly valuable community.

To change this situation, the project party needs to rethink the essence of community building. A truly valuable community should be based on a shared vision and goals, rather than just the exchange of short-term interests. Only when community members genuinely recognize the value of the project and are willing to participate and support it in the long term can the community become a solid backing for the project's development, rather than a potential threat.