Author: YBB Capital Researcher Zeke

I. Celebrity Coins: From Creation to Marketing

Warren Buffett has maintained the legacy of his late wife, Susan Buffett, for 23 years, turning the endorsement of a group of business elites into the globally renowned “time auction,” creating the most iconic “expensive lunch” model in the history of charity. The monetization of celebrity time is not uncommon in Web3, from the ancient Time New Bank to the later Friend.tech. The path of SocialFi has been explored for over seven or eight years, but in most cases, it has had little impact. After all, in the on-chain world, speculative trading often outweighs the “fragile social interactions” built with Tokens as a link. Most users aren’t truly interested in the exclusive insights shared by celebrities, but are focused on the “quantity and price” of the celebrity’s influence. Conversely, for top celebrities, platforms like SocialFi offer small profits that are cumbersome to manage, and the influence they have is already scarce, so putting it into a platform with transparent prices and few users seems both awkward and foolish.

The lack of accumulation has doomed SocialFi for the time being, which is why the path to monetizing celebrity value in Web3 needs to undergo differentiation, transition, and evolution. A paid subscription community, a blue-ticked X account with more accumulation, these Web2 combinations are what KOLs need right now. The path of value conversion for top celebrities has always been unsmooth, like a large corporation with millions of items waiting to be dumped. B2B is unprofitable, B2C has no carrier.

From the monetization of time to the monetization of influence is the first relatively successful step in the path of exploration. NFTs played this role for a long time. But clearly, the characteristics of NFTs — emphasizing scarcity, fixed-price sales, and illiquidity — have failed to satisfy both buyers and sellers. This way of selling memorabilia has fallen flat after BTC’s ecosystem faded.

Celebrities need a new carrier, and while the answer has long been hidden in Musk and Doge’s story, it still requires some opportunity. Last year, Pump.fun’s coin distribution craze swept through the crypto circle, and the Meme wave coincided with the U.S. presidential election. During this period, various coins were issued by citizens, with ultra-high growth and heat, catching the attention of some crypto manipulators. They signed contracts or persuaded real celebrities to issue coins, while they managed the rest. This sounds similar to the MCN agency model with internet celebrities, but in reality, the situation is violent. From Caitlyn Jenner (the U.S. Olympic decathlon champion and one of Trump’s top fans) with JENNER to President Mile’s LIBRA. It started with a tweet and ended with a vertical K-line drop. The entire process, which could take days or just hours, quickly harvested profits. Then, social media big shots launched an urgent “investigation,” and coin teams posted blame on each other. In the end, the concept of celebrity coins was born amidst this mess.

But no matter what, this path has indeed become very clear. From the initial effect, Meme’s low-threshold distribution channel is perfect. But without intrinsic value, celebrity Meme faces the question of what happens once the heat fades and the PvP ends. The issue moves from the carrier to long-term sustainability. AI Agents can tell you about the future of humanity, RWA can describe a Hundred Trillion market, but what story can celebrity coins tell?

Trump gave a very cliché answer: He wanted to give the first 220 holders of TRUMP a “presidential time,” and the first 25 holders would be invited to a special VIP trip to the White House the next day. The value of celebrity coins once again regressed to “time,” and in my view, this scheme might temporarily unlock tokens but won’t support long-term token price growth.

A good Meme should emphasize emotion and narrative, not empowerment. The value of celebrity coins is not the celebrity’s insights and time, but the celebrity’s story and the emotions behind it. Trump’s dinner invitation is more like selling an ultra-expensive version of a Social Token. Once presidential time ends, everything will fade. How to market TRUMP? Trump’s crypto team could ask the Doge Minister for advice, as Doge is tied to Musk, SpaceX, and Tesla. To The Moon is still the slogan etched in crypto users’ hearts. People’s currency makes holders believe 1 Doge = 1 U, challenging traditional finance aligns with crypto’s genes, and in fact, each point is Musk using his own power to sell emotion to the masses, even though most of these stories are yet to come true. Marketing celebrity coins still has a long way to go. The memeification of personal influence shouldn’t be as crude as a tweet or a favorable news event. Making money in crypto isn’t detestable, but one must first understand the crypto world.

II. The Evil Dragon

Blur is a project that is rarely mentioned these days, the last time it came up was when Blast launched its point system.

With the demise of the NFT narrative, many stories have already faded, but the mark left by Pacman on this circle will not disappear. Blur’s success in slaying OpenSea was built on the combination of “Points + zero fees, royalties + social virality.” This PDD-style approach surrounded the city with a rural strategy. The orange logo flooded Twitter on the day of the airdrop, and no NFT player would forget it. From a marketing perspective, Blur’s three-pronged approach was invincible. Not only did it defeat competitors that other NFT platforms could not even imagine, but it also prompted many who had never touched NFTs to join the points-grinding army. Within a few months, Blur broke multiple records. Since then, nearly every Web3 project has regarded this marketing model as a bible.

Back then, NFT players who had been struggling with OpenSea were applauding, but eventually, Blur turned from the slayer to the evil dragon. To put it mildly, Airdrop3 was my first experience of loathing Web3 incentive activities. Blur used a self-destructive strategy to exchange for TVL and trading volume. I had said at the start of the campaign that NFTs would speed up their demise. The “Bid For Airdrop” mechanism encouraged users to place orders without actually purchasing, leading to false demand and a spiral price drop. The mechanism attracted arbitrageurs, not real buyers. Once Blur’s token value collapsed, all blue-chip projects would be buried along with it. Later, NFT’s death, from my perspective, began with Blur’s bid incentive and ended with Azuki’s Elementals series release. Of course, much of this still comes down to NFTs not finding the right path (excluding Pudgy).

Later, Pacman launched NFT lending protocol Blend and Ethereum Layer2 Blast. Both protocols largely continued Blur’s underlying strategy. Blend uses a lending point reward system where users participating in NFT collateral lending can earn airdrop points, continuing the “trade-to-mine” logic. Blast adopts a “deposit points + invitation points” model, where users stake ETH or stablecoins to earn native Blast yield and airdrop points. The former’s income logic relies on familiar lending market profits such as lending interest and liquidation arbitrage. The latter achieves profits by staking ETH in DeFi protocols like Lido. Through the ETH locked in these three, Pacman built a self-circulating crypto bank, but the returns given back to users are unequal. Except for Blur’s early generous rewards, subsequent projects’ incentive activities basically declared the end of the airdrop era. Centralized points made all incentives into black boxes, with rules self-made, and the point-based gameplay was heavily criticized by users.

So, what consequences did the point system bring? First, false prosperity — when rewards become visible, users lock their assets into various protocols just to obtain project tokens. And the project parties can use this false user data and inflated TVL to raise funds, which causes VCs, who are accustomed to measuring value by data, to suffer heavy losses. Second, it stifles innovation — projects that excel at activities outshine those with solid tech but lack marketing. Third, liquidity fragmentation — truly valuable assets are locked in various protocols just for this seemingly risk-free game. Fourth, and most importantly, when the point system is launched, it’s like directly issuing tokens. A large influx of studios, retail investors, and whales rush in to grab a small piece of the pie. Either they compete on quantity or on funds. For retail investors, the distribution is so small that it’s hard to even cover the gas fees, and thus, the airdrop era truly ends.

Currently, the point system still dominates Web3, and “point mining” has led to the spread of speculative culture, with the Point Market amplifying this phenomenon. The incentive of airdrops has fundamentally changed the nature of early users and community building. The original intent of Uni’s airdrop years ago was to promote DeFi Summer and achieve real user retention and growth. In today’s era, every time a project launches, it means a mass exodus of funds and the appearance of a “ghost town.” If the project cancels this model, it will fall into an even more passive situation. Caught in this dilemma, users can only look for a new home.

III. Public Blockchains

Ethereum developed its expansive ecosystem by adhering to its technical path and commitment to decentralization during the early days of blockchain. However, the path to success changes with each era. If we look back ten years, who could have predicted that Tencent would fail to replicate a short video platform, or that Taobao would eventually be replaced by an e-commerce platform that was entirely filled with discount offers? Similarly, just two years ago, I couldn’t imagine Solana actually taking down a giant. But the reality is, in this era where the application layer stagnates, marketing and practicality outweigh the so-called technical beliefs.

Two days ago, the Ethereum Foundation (EF) published three articles reiterating Ethereum’s future vision and foundation management structure. The key information revealed wasn’t complex: first, there is a decentralization of EF’s power, intervening in projects when necessary and stepping back when not; second, EF’s leadership structure has been re-organized to improve execution efficiency and strengthen communication with the community; third, they maintain a path of modular scaling and are exploring RISC-V as a potential alternative to the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). While there’s still some grandiosity, EF has indeed dropped its arrogant stance.

But is Ethereum’s real problem these factors? I would say they are related, but not entirely. Some of the changes mentioned above are focused on user dissatisfaction with EF, and Ethereum’s resistance to becoming more mainstream is rooted in Vitalik’s leadership. There’s nothing wrong with not understanding or embracing memes, but the problem lies in Vitalik still holding an absolute leadership role over Ethereum. A project worth 220 billion dollars led by a somewhat idealistic and stubborn individual, unwilling to engage with the current mainstream culture, will inevitably face setbacks. However, the bright spot is that among the numerous isolated Layer 2 solutions, there is Base, which can still contend with Solana. If I were part of EF, I would definitely request external support from CB.

Leaving aside conspiracy theories regarding BNB, at least CZ, who also doesn’t fully understand memes, is making a genuine effort to accept these concepts. In his post-prison days, he has also led projects like DeSci, which briefly became a hot track. However, the lack of a solid Western foundation has made every BNB boom somewhat short-lived.

Solana’s victory lies in its lower profile. After the collapse of SBF, Solana became like a child left without parental protection. Facing Ethereum, it had to seize every opportunity. Starting with the catalyst of Silly Dragon, and later with various super memes, Dapps, and PayFi, Solana’s ecosystem has proven to be more decentralized than many imagined.

It wasn’t Pump.fun that allowed Solana to rise again; rather, Pump.fun could only have emerged on the Solana blockchain. This is similar to what happened with Uni and Ethereum a few years ago. Solana’s marketing strategy for non-technical users is built around simplicity, usability, and efficiency — this is the core concept. As Crypto moves toward Western mainstream adoption, pragmatism takes precedence: the common people come first. Solana is indeed well-suited to be the first chain.

Conclusion

In terms of marketing, I have omitted discussions about NFTs and GameFi here. If either of these sectors experiences a revival, I may revisit them later. The narrative of the crypto world continues to evolve, torn between technological idealism and human greed. The rise in token prices, the flourishing of projects, and the revival of public blockchains fundamentally all stem from successful marketing. In the past, we listened to technical narratives; today, we must integrate with the mainstream.

About YBB

YBB is a web3 fund dedicating itself to identify Web3-defining projects with a vision to create a better online habitat for all internet residents. Founded by a group of blockchain believers who have been actively participated in this industry since 2013, YBB is always willing to help early-stage projects to evolve from 0 to 1.We value innovation, self-driven passion, and user-oriented products while recognizing the potential of cryptos and blockchain applications.

Website | Twi: @YBBCapital