Misconceptions in Community Building for Crypto Project Parties and the Dilemma of Tokens Falling Below the Issue Price

In the current cryptocurrency market, new projects generally face the predicament of falling below the issue price as soon as they launch. Tokens encounter significant selling pressure right after being listed, and buying interest is weak. To address this situation, the project party has tried various strategies, such as controlling chips, locking up airdrops, or limiting the distribution of airdrops.

However, these practices reflect a deeper issue: the project party equates its community with potential selling pressure. This perception raises a series of questions: why does the community, which has been painstakingly built, ultimately become a source of selling pressure? If the community only represents selling, then what is the significance of building a community?

In fact, many project parties have a distorted understanding of community building. They often view community building as a necessary condition for token listing, rather than the foundation for project development. This leads to the community being reduced to cold data metrics, with the pursuit of rapid growth and large scale becoming the primary goal.

A mature community growth model has been formed in the market, including various task platforms, social media tools, and collaborations with opinion leaders. These methods attract a large number of users through low-threshold participation and airdrop rewards, achieving what is known as "organic growth." However, this growth model often attracts user groups whose primary purpose is to "farm airdrops."

If the ultimate goal of the project is merely to quickly list the Token and exit, then this way of community building is indeed efficient and direct. But this is also the fundamental reason why the community becomes a sell side rather than a buy side.

The project party has positioned the community as data contributors from the very beginning, while the original intention of community members participating is to earn airdrops. Both parties are aware of each other's true intentions but choose to use each other. For the project, the issued Tokens are essentially the costs paid to exchange for user data, rather than real assets.

Therefore, when the Token is officially issued, these airdrops naturally become a source of selling pressure. The short-sighted behavior of the project party is actually digging a grave for themselves, ultimately harming the long-term development prospects of the project.

To change this situation, the project party needs to reassess the essential meaning of community building, focusing on cultivating genuine supporters and user groups, rather than merely pursuing superficial data growth. Only by establishing a truly valuable community that can support the project's long-term development can we avoid the predicament of falling below the issue price immediately after the listing and achieve sustainable development.