Written by: JiaYi

In 1981, 16-year-old Shi Yongxin entered the then almost forgotten Shaolin Temple. At that time, there were only 9 monks in the temple, struggling to make ends meet through farming and incense offerings. A turning point came a year later: the film "Shaolin Temple," starring Jet Li, exploded nationwide, and the ancient temple became the focus of public attention overnight.

Shi Yongxin precisely captured this "mental dividend." He did not invent kung fu, nor was he the most skilled martial artist, but he accomplished a groundbreaking brand positioning: he deeply embedded the mental imprint of "Shaolin Temple = Chinese Kung Fu" in the minds of global audiences.

In the following decades, he systematically organized martial arts classics, promoted performances abroad, engaged in cultural dissemination, and created commercial licensing, transforming Shaolin from a religious site into a global entry point for "kung fu recognition." More importantly, this recognition was not limited to "cultural influence," but ultimately turned into real monetary gains: tickets, IP, real estate, intangible asset management… Recognition became the entry point for business.

This is the power of "collective mentality": When you leave a clear and unique label in the minds of users, you qualify to tell stories, set prices, and exist long-term.

What is the relationship between collective mentality and Web3 projects?

You might ask: What can a monk who has built a brand in Shaolin Temple for forty years teach Web3 projects?

I want you to look at Shi Yongxin, not because he understands live streaming or cultural IP, but because he accomplished something that almost all Web3 projects strive for but rarely achieve: he secured the definition rights of a keyword in the minds of global users.

Web2 focuses on business, of course looking at market share, that is, the proportion of users in your vertical track. Because traditional business, whether in valuation or the business itself, cannot be separated from the direct competitiveness of the product after landing in the market. In my opinion, for Web3 projects: the "collective mentality possession" of the project greatly exceeds the "practical possession rate."

However, "focusing on collective mentality" is not an empty phrase; it runs through every stage of the project from 0 to 1, especially at the critical node of TGE. After TGE, with liquidity, the operational logic of the project will change completely. You are no longer just telling stories and attracting attention; you begin to face real market pricing, arbitrage, and games. This transition is very drastic; if you are unprepared, all the initial heat and expectations may quickly collapse within days.

Therefore, project teams must think in advance: What kind of user mentality should you seize before TGE? What narrative should you tell? What position should you place yourself in the minds of users?

Next, let's discuss this in detail.

Before TGE, how should project teams build "collective mentality"?

For most Web3 projects, TGE is the first time stepping onto the public market stage. But what truly determines success or failure is actually before TGE. This stage is your golden window to seize user mentality. It not only concerns whether the token can be successfully launched but also whether you can use this "collective attention moment" to plant a long-lasting cognitive label in the minds of users.

How you clarify the project's positioning, solidify trust, and stabilize expectations during this time determines whether you can attract truly valuable early participants. Otherwise, what you may end up with is not a launch, but an end.

I usually suggest projects that have not yet reached TGE to conduct a "three questions of mentality" self-check:

1. What Tier do you belong to in the minds of users?

Are you a top player in this track? Or a marginal project? Behind this is a very realistic formula:

User's Tier perception of your project = Expectation value of your TGE = Willingness to invest time in following you = Your actual data performance, etc.

Your actual data performance and user participation often reflect the user's subjective perception of whether you are "worth betting on." These do not solely come from what you have done but also from how "high-tier you appear to be."

2. What do users actually remember about you?

This might be the point where Web3 entrepreneurs most often overestimate themselves. Many teams present their projects with tight logic and clear structure, but after listening for twenty minutes, I still find myself asking: "So what is your breakthrough point?"

Reality is harsh. In this market, where focus is incredibly fragmented, countless projects are promoted every day; do not expect users to truly understand you. They will only remember a few keywords that evoke associations and emotions. Therefore, you must simplify and distill all content into three things that users can "take away": easy to remember, can stimulate profit imagination, and related to future explosive potential.

In plain language, this is the ability that most projects lack.

3. Can collective trust be maintained?

How to build a project that is trusted by users? This is the easiest point to overlook and also the most easily breached layer.

Even if you have strong technology and compelling narratives, once users begin to question your persona, team, or behavior patterns, trust will collapse, and the mentality will automatically disengage.

Trust collapse often does not stem from major issues but from the accumulation of seemingly trivial matters. For example, if a user asks a question and no one responds, or if they ask several times and receive no reply; if you promised to release rewards at a certain time but keep delaying without any explanation; if someone in the community starts to question, and the team collectively plays dead or coldly states, "We will discuss internally"; or sometimes, while the project appears to be well-presented, it is rumored that "this is just a round of arbitrage."

Each of these issues may seem minor, but this feeling of "saying one thing and doing another" can puncture the initial trust of users, especially those early supporters. They were originally your most valuable assets, the ones who genuinely believed in your story, but once a crack in trust appears, they will exit the fastest and are least likely to return.

Just as when people around the world mention Chinese kung fu, most people's first reaction is not Wing Chun, Bajiquan, or Tai Chi, but: Shaolin. Wing Chun is not bad, but it has not encountered its Shi Yongxin. You need to be the one who establishes collective mentality for the project.

After TGE, the project officially enters the "financial asset" state

After TGE, the project is no longer just a product, vision, or story; it has become a financial asset with a price, liquidity, and secondary trading. Whether you are valuable, worth buying, or can rise, begins to be validated in the most public and cold manner.

The first change is in the user structure. Those early users who once shared your ideals, ran testnets, and actively participated in the community have now transformed. They are now both users and traders. And a larger wave of traders is just entering the market. They are not here to "listen to your story," but to ask a more direct question: "Does this coin have profit opportunities?"

In Web3, very few products are "irreplaceable." Even if you perform 20% or 30% better than competitors, as long as the coin price remains stagnant and the market lacks volatility, you will still be quickly abandoned. Users will not give you time and patience to grow; they will immediately chase the project that "looks more likely to rise."

Therefore, project teams must directly answer one question: Why should others buy your coin?

This corresponds to three typical user mentality models:

Low-tier players: My product is good. User: It doesn't matter if it's good or not; I just don't dare to buy.

The most common mentality for these projects is: "We have leading technology, good product experience, and a serious team." But the market will not reward you just because you work hard.

Users' responses are usually: "No matter how well you say it, is there volatility? No? Then I don't dare to buy."

This is a typical "separation of product value and financial value." In Web3, if there is only a product without price elasticity, it cannot support user trust. You can be a builder, but in the eyes of users, you are just a "coin without expected difference."

The reality is that product experience is no longer a scarce commodity, but the price expectations that can attract attention are.

So you need to understand: you think you are building a product, but in fact, you are competing for the mental entry of financial emotions.

Mid-tier players: I have good news, I pump the price. User: I will speculate in the short term and run as soon as I profit.

The vast majority of users in Web3 are short-term speculators. They do not aspire to long-term co-construction, but as long as you have price pumps, rhythm, and good news, they will come in to participate.

They are not believers, nor community evangelists. But as long as you create "tradeability," they will enter for a round.

This is not a bad thing. On the contrary, it indicates that you have "movement." Users know you are a project that can create volatility, and even if they cannot hold on for long, it is still worth keeping an eye on.

As long as you can execute a few effective price pumps, the market will begin to default that you are a "coin with potential." Your token will be added to users' watchlists, and a group of people will specifically wait for your next move.

From no one paying attention → to some participation → to some keeping an eye on, this is the gradual establishment of "price elasticity mentality" in Web3.

High-tier players: Make users feel "this coin is worth holding; if I sell, I might miss the opportunity."

The most ideal and hardest user mentality to establish is when users, while liquidating, actively choose to keep your coin. What comes to their mind is not "can I make quick money," but: "This project, I might still need it in the next round." "This coin, once it rises, I might not be able to buy it back."

To reach this level, the project must establish a complete "trust × expectation × feedback" loop, meeting at least four conditions:

• The project's long-term direction is clear, and the narrative does not jump around;
• Product progress is rhythmic, and users can see hope;
• The project team has good news, and the coin price is not weak;
• The coin price has resilience, forming emotional elasticity that allows for "if it goes up, there is still something to talk about; if it goes down, it can still be pumped again."

This token may not rise dramatically every day, but users know in their hearts that "you are a long-term asset worth participating in," and naturally, they will hold, spread, and maintain it.

SUI: A real case of mental reversal

Let's take a recent coin that I have placed in my long-term targets: $SUI. Let's break it down.

SUI boasts a luxurious team (the product research team from Facebook's Meta project), and its valuation in the primary market is in the billions, making it a target of FOMO for major investment institutions. To be honest, I thought SUI's performance was not good at the beginning of TGE; the overall community feeling was that the project team was arrogant and disconnected from the community. Until a year and a half ago, SUI suddenly realized the importance of the community, continuing to push the ecosystem while also engaging the community. I won't elaborate on the secondary level due to regulatory issues.

What happened afterward is well known. Suddenly, SUI became the "little SOL" in the market's mentality. It squeezed into the list of assets that users were willing to hold long-term.

In fact, SUI has already experienced two events this summer that tested market confidence: first, the ecological project Cetus encountered a security incident at the end of May, leading to the depletion of about $223 million in liquidity pools; second, at the beginning of July, it faced the unlocking of 44 million tokens, worth nearly $200 million, which was one of the largest releases of the entire quarter.

According to the usual rhythm, such a series of negative events should have led to a price collapse and a breakdown in community sentiment. But the result was the opposite: SUI not only was not abandoned by the market, but it also rose to $4.39 the day before yesterday, reaching a new high since February of this year, becoming one of the hottest trading projects in the sector.

Why did it hold up? The key lies not only in the Sui team's avoidance of negative situations like the hacking incident but also in their swift acceptance of responsibility. What is truly important is that over the past year, Sui has gradually changed users' perceptions of it through actions, transforming its previously criticized "arrogant and indifferent" image into one of a "trustworthy project worth long-term investment."

Taking the ecological project Cetus, which was attacked, as an example, although this risk was triggered by a third-party smart contract and Sui was not directly responsible, the team did not shift the blame. They not only immediately suspended the relevant contracts and froze two involved wallets but also collaborated with Sui's validating nodes to initiate a vote. Additionally, they worked with the Sui Foundation to arrange loans to raise compensation funds, promising "full compensation" to the victims. Ultimately, 90.9% of validators voted in favor of releasing $162 million in frozen assets, and the compensation plan was successfully passed.

The entire process was transparent, swift, and executed with strong effectiveness, making the outside world truly realize more than once: this team can withstand pressure and is willing to take responsibility at critical moments.

What they demonstrated is: As long as you establish a clear mental anchor in the early stages and continue to deliver after TGE, the market will give you time and space.

Trust is the only direction I am willing to bet on

Many projects come to me for market assistance, but I have collaborated with very few. It’s not that my standards are too high, but I only want to invest my time and credibility in trustworthy teams.

Before I decide whether to assist, I conduct a complete project due diligence, with only two core judgment criteria: Is this team trustworthy? Does its community believe in them?

If even one of these points is not valid, no matter how beautiful the narrative is, I will choose not to cooperate. I do not believe I can improve a project through marketing, nor will I place my trust in an irresponsible team.

Because ultimately, the core competitiveness of Web3 projects is not technological barriers or funding amounts. It is whether you can leave a clear, credible, and worth-repeating position in the minds of a group of people.

This is collective mentality, and it is the true deciding factor in Web3.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。