Collective Mindset: The Key to Success or Failure in Web3 Projects

In 1981, 16-year-old Shi Yongxin entered the almost forgotten Shaolin Temple. At that time, there were only 9 monks in the temple, struggling to survive by farming and relying on donations. The turning point came a year later: a kung fu movie exploded nationwide, and the ancient temple became the focus of public attention overnight.

Shi Yongxin precisely grasped this "mental dividend". Although he did not invent martial arts and is not the most skilled in martial arts, he accomplished a groundbreaking brand positioning: deeply embedding the mental imprint of "Shaolin Temple = Chinese Kung Fu" into the minds of global audiences.

In the following decades, he systematically organized martial arts classics, promoted performances abroad, carried out cultural dissemination, and created commercial licensing, transforming Shaolin from a religious site into a global entry point for "kung fu awareness." More importantly, this awareness extends beyond "cultural influence" and ultimately translates into real monetary gains: tickets, IP, real estate, intangible asset management, and more. Awareness has become the entry point for business.

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

The Deep Relationship Between Collective Mindset and Web3 Projects

The case of Shi Yongxin is worth learning from for Web3 projects because he accomplished something that almost all Web3 projects strive for but seldom achieve: he has defined the keyword in the minds of global users.

Web2 focuses on business, naturally emphasizing market share, which refers to the proportion of users within a vertical track. This is because traditional commerce, whether in terms of valuation or the business itself, is inextricably linked to the direct competitiveness of the product in the market after its launch. In Web3 projects, the role of "group mental ownership" greatly surpasses that of "practical ownership rate."

But "paying attention to the mindset of the target audience" is not just empty talk; it runs through every stage of the project from 0 to 1, especially at the key node of TGE. After TGE, with liquidity in place, the operational logic of the project will change completely. You are no longer just telling stories and attracting attention, but instead, you begin to face real market pricing, arbitrage, and competition. This transition is very drastic, and if you are unprepared, all the enthusiasm and expectations from the early stage may rapidly collapse within a few days.

Therefore, the project team must think ahead: what kind of user mindset should you occupy before the TGE? What narrative should you tell? How should you position yourself in the user's mind?

How should project teams build a "collective mindset" before TGE?

For most Web3 projects, the TGE is the first time they stand on the stage of the public market. However, what truly determines success or failure happens before the TGE. This phase is your golden window to seize users' minds. It not only concerns whether the token can be successfully launched, but also whether you can use this "collective attention moment" to plant a cognitive label in users' minds that can be remembered for a long time.

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

For projects that have not yet had their TGE, it is recommended to conduct a "mental triage" self-check first:

1. Which Tier do you belong to in the user's mind?

Are you a leading player in this field? Or a fringe project? Behind this is actually a very realistic formula:

User's understanding of your project's Tier = Expected value of your TGE = Willingness to invest how much time to pay attention to you = Your real data performance, etc.

Your actual data performance and user engagement are often the external results of users' subjective perception of whether you are "worth betting on." These do not solely come from what you have done, but more from how you "appear to be ranked in tiers."

2. What exactly does the user remember about you?

This might be the most common point where Web3 entrepreneurs overestimate themselves. Many teams present their projects with logical rigor 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 incredibly fragmented market, countless projects are promoted every day, and you shouldn't expect users to truly understand you. They will only remember a few keywords that can evoke associations and generate emotions. Therefore, you must simplify, distilling all content down to three things that users can "take away": easy to remember, can spark the imagination of making money, and related to future explosive potential.

Speaking plainly is the most lacking ability in most projects.

3. Can collective trust be stable?

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

Even if your skills are strong and your storytelling is excellent, once users begin to doubt your persona, team, or behavioral patterns, trust will collapse, and their mindset will automatically disengage.

The collapse of trust is often not due to major issues, but rather the accumulation of seemingly trivial small matters. For example, when users ask a question and no one responds, and after asking several times it still falls on deaf ears; what was promised to be a reward at a certain time gets delayed and there's not even an explanation; someone in the community starts to doubt, and the team collectively plays dead, or coldly says, "We will discuss this internally"; sometimes, from the outside, the project seems to be speaking eloquently, but behind the scenes, it is rumored that "this is just a round of arbitrage."

Each of these matters may seem small, but this feeling of "saying one thing and doing another" can gradually undermine the initial trust of users, especially that group of early supporters. They were originally your most valuable assets, people who sincerely believed in your story, but once a crack in trust appears, they are the quickest to leave and the least likely to come back.

Just as when the world mentions Chinese Kung Fu, most people's first reaction is not Wing Chun, Baji, or Tai Chi, but: Shaolin. Wing Chun is not bad, but it hasn't welcomed its Shi Yongxin. You need to be the one who establishes a collective mindset for the project.

After TGE, the project officially enters the "financial instrument" status.

After the TGE, the project is no longer just a product, vision, or story, but has become a financial asset with a price, liquidity, and secondary trading. Whether you are valuable, worth buying, or capable of rising, begins to be verified in the most public and coldest way.

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 also undergone a transformation. They are now both users and traders. Meanwhile, a larger wave of traders has only just entered the market. They are not here to "listen to your stories" but to ask a more direct question: "Does this coin have the potential to make money?"

In Web3, there are very few "irreplaceable products." Even if you perform 20% or 30% better than your competitors, as long as the coin price remains stagnant and the market has no fluctuations, you will still be quickly abandoned. Users will not give you the time and patience to grow; they will immediately chase after the project that "seems to be able to rise more."

Therefore, the project party must answer a question directly: why would others want to buy your coin?

Behind this, there are actually three typical user mental models:

Low-level player: My product is good. User: Whether it's good or not doesn't matter, anyway I'm not afraid to buy.

The most common mindset for such projects is: "We are technologically advanced, our product experience is good, and our team is very serious." However, the market will not reward you just because you put in the effort.

The user's reaction is usually: "No matter how well you say it, is there volatility? No? Then I dare not buy."

This is a typical "separation of product value and financial value". In Web3, there are only products, and 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 point of financial sentiment.

Mid-level player: I have good news, I'm pumping the price User: Speculate in the short term, I'll run as soon as I profit

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

They are neither believers nor community evangelists. But as long as you create "tradeability", they will come in for a round.

This is not a bad thing. On the contrary, it indicates that you have "movement". Users know that you are a project that can make swings, and even if they can't hold on tightly, it's worth keeping an eye on.

As long as you can successfully pump the market a few times, it will start to assume you are a "hot" coin. Your token will be added to users' watchlists, and there will be a group of people specifically waiting for your next move.

From no one paying attention → to some people participating → to some people staking out, this is the gradual process of establishing the "price elasticity mindset" in Web3.

Advanced players: Make users feel that "this coin is worth holding, if they sell it, they won't be able to get back in."

The ideal, yet hardest mindset to establish in users, is when they actively choose to keep your coin while clearing out their holdings. What comes to their mind is not "Can I make quick money?" but rather: "This project, I might still need it in the next round." "This coin, once it goes up, 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 will not jump around. · Product progress is rhythmic, users can see hope; · The project party has favorable news, and the coin price is not weak. · The price of the currency is resilient, capable of creating an emotional elasticity of "if it goes up, there’s still something to discuss; if it goes down, it can still be pulled back up."

This token may not skyrocket every day, but users know in their hearts, "you are an asset worth participating in for the long term," and naturally, they will hold, spread, and maintain it.

SUI: A Real Case of Mental Reversal

I recently put a coin into a long-term investment: $SUI. Let's break it down.

SUI boasts a luxurious team, and its valuation in the primary market of several billion dollars has made it a target of FOMO for major investment institutions. To be honest, I thought SUI's performance was not very good in the early stages of TGE; the overall sentiment in the community was that the project team was arrogant and out of touch with the community. It wasn't until a year and a half ago that SUI suddenly realized the importance of the community, continuing to promote its ecosystem while also engaging with the community. I won't say much about the secondary level due to regulatory issues.

Everyone knows what happened next. Suddenly, SUI became known as "the little SOL" in the market mindset. It squeezed in on the list of assets that users are willing to hold long-term.

In fact, Sui has already experienced two events this summer that tested market confidence: first, in late May, an ecological project encountered a security incident, leading to the depletion of approximately $223 million in liquidity pools; second, at the beginning of July, there was 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, this series of negative events should have led to a price crash and a collapse in community sentiment. However, the result was the opposite: SUI not only was not abandoned by the market, but instead rose to $4.39 the day before yesterday, setting a new high since February of this year, becoming one of the most actively traded projects in the sector.

Why did it withstand? The key is not just that the Sui team did not avoid negative situations such as hacking incidents, but rather took responsibility quickly. What is truly important is that over the past year or so, Sui has gradually changed users' perceptions of it through actions, pulling back its originally criticized image of being "arrogant and indifferent" to becoming a project that is "trustworthy and worth long-term staking."

Taking the attack on an ecological project as an example, although this was a risk triggered by a third-party smart contract, Sui is not the direct responsible party. However, the team did not shift the blame; they not only immediately suspended the relevant contract, froze two involved wallets, and initiated a vote with cooperative validating nodes, but also collaborated with the foundation to arrange loans and raise compensation funds to promise "full compensation" to the victims. Ultimately, 90.9% of the validators voted in support of releasing $162 million in frozen assets, and the compensation plan was successfully passed.

The entire process is transparent, rapid, and highly effective, which has made the outside world truly realize more than once: this team is crucial at key moments.