A must-read for project owners: Learn from Shi Yongxin how to market through group thinking

In 1981, 16-year-old Shi Yongxin entered the then-almost forgotten Shaolin Temple. At the time, the temple housed only nine monks, struggling to survive by farming and receiving incense offerings. A turning point came a year later: the film "Shaolin Temple," starring Jet Li, became a nationwide sensation, catapulting the ancient temple into the public eye overnight. Shi Yongxin accurately grasped this "mental dividend." He didn't invent kung fu, nor was he the most skilled martial artist, but he achieved a groundbreaking brand positioning: he imprinted the "Shaolin Temple = Chinese Kung Fu" image in the minds of audiences worldwide. Over the following decades, he systematically compiled martial arts texts, promoted performances overseas, engaged in cultural dissemination, and developed commercial licensing. From a religious site, he transformed Shaolin into a global gateway to kung fu awareness. More importantly, this recognition went beyond "cultural influence" and ultimately translated into real money: ticket sales, IP, real estate, intangible asset management... Recognition became a gateway to business.

This is the power of "group mind": When you leave a clear, unique label in the user's mind, you have the right to tell a story, set a price, and maintain a long-term presence.

How relevant is group mind to Web3 projects?

You might ask: A monk has been building a brand at Shaolin Temple for forty years. What can Web3 projects learn from him?

I'm referring to Shi Yongxin, not because he understands live streaming or cultural IP, but because he has accomplished something that almost all Web3 projects strive for but rarely achieve: establishing a defining keyword in the minds of global users.

Web2 is about business, and of course, market share—that is, the user base within your vertical—is important. This is because traditional businesses, both in terms of valuation and the business itself, rely heavily on the product's immediate market competitiveness after launch. For Web3 projects, I personally believe that a project's "group mindshare" significantly outweighs "actual market share."

But "focusing on the collective mind" isn't just empty talk; it permeates every stage of a project's journey from zero to one, especially the crucial TGE. After the TGE, with liquidity, the project's operational logic undergoes a fundamental shift. You're no longer just telling stories and attracting attention; you're now dealing with real market pricing, arbitrage, and game-playing. This shift is drastic, and if you're not prepared, all the initial excitement and anticipation can quickly vanish in a matter of days.

Therefore, projects must consider in advance: Before the TGE, what kind of user mind should you capture? What narrative should you tell? Where should you position yourself in the user's mind?

Let's discuss each of these in detail.

How should projects build "collective mind" before the TGE?

For most Web3 projects, the TGE is their first foray into the public market. But the true determinant of success or failure lies before the TGE. This phase offers a golden window for capturing user attention. It's crucial not only for the successful launch of your token, but also for leveraging this "collective attention moment" to plant a lasting, memorable label in users' minds. How you use this period to clearly articulate your project's positioning, build trust, and maintain stable expectations will determine whether you can attract truly valuable early adopters. Otherwise, you might end up with a demise, not a launch. I generally recommend that projects that haven't yet held a TGE conduct a self-examination using the "Three Mental Questions": 1. Which tier do you belong to in the minds of users? Are you a leading player in your field, or a fringe project? The underlying formula is actually quite realistic: Users' perception of your project's tier = their expected value for your TGE = how much time they're willing to invest in you = your actual performance data, etc. Your actual performance data and user engagement are often the outward manifestation of users' subjective perception of whether you're "worth betting on." These aren't solely based on what you've done, but rather on how tier you appear to be. 2. What exactly do users remember about you? This may be the most common self-overestimation among Web3 entrepreneurs. Many teams present their projects with rigorous logic and clear structure, but after listening for twenty minutes, I still ask, "So, what's your breaking point?" Reality is harsh. In this incredibly fragmented market, with countless project announcements every day, don't expect users to truly understand you. They only remember a few keywords that evoke associations and emotions. Therefore, you must do subtraction, ultimately distilling all content down to three key takeaways for users: easy to remember, inspiring money-making potential, and related to future explosive growth potential.

Speaking in plain language is the most lacking skill for most projects.

3. Can you maintain user trust?

How do you build a project that earns user trust? This is the most easily overlooked point, and the most vulnerable layer.

Even if you have strong technical skills and a brilliant storytelling, once users question your persona, team, or behavior, trust collapses, and their minds automatically lose their anchor.

Trust often collapses not because of major events, but rather the accumulation of seemingly insignificant little things. For example, a user might raise a question but receive no response, even after repeated inquiries. A reward payment, agreed upon, is repeatedly delayed without explanation. Someone in the community begins to question the plan, but the team plays deadlock or simply says, "We'll discuss this internally." Sometimes, while the project may appear to be well-reasoned from the outside, rumors circulate behind the scenes that it's just a scam. Each of these incidents may seem minor, but it's this sense of "saying one thing, doing another" that gradually erodes users' initial trust, especially those who were your earliest supporters. They were once your most valuable assets, those who truly believed in your story. But once that trust cracks, they're the first to leave and the last to return. Just as when Chinese Kung Fu is mentioned worldwide, most people's first thought isn't Wing Chun, Bajiquan, or Tai Chi, but Shaolin. Wing Chun isn't bad, but it hasn't had its own Shi Yongxin. You need to be the one who builds the collective mindset for the project.

After the TGE, the project officially entered the "financial target" stage.

After the TGE, the project is no longer just about products, visions, and stories; it has become a financial asset with a price, liquidity, and secondary trading. Your value, worth buying, and potential for growth begin to be verified in the most public and unbiased way.

The first thing to change is 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. A larger wave of traders are just entering the market. They aren't here to "listen to your story" but to ask a more direct question: Does your coin have profit potential?

Rarely are there "irreplaceable" products in Web3. Even if you're 20% or 30% better than your competitors, if the price doesn't move and the market doesn't fluctuate, you'll be quickly abandoned. Users won't give you the time and patience to grow; they'll immediately chase the project that "seems more promising." Therefore, projects must directly answer the question: Why would anyone buy your coin? This reflects three typical user mental models: Low-level players: My product is good. Users: Whether it's good or not doesn't matter; I'm not afraid to buy. The most common mentality among these projects is, "We have leading technology, a great product experience, and a dedicated team." But the market won't reward your hard work. Users often respond, "No matter how good you sound, will there be volatility? No? Then I won't buy." This is a classic example of a "divergence between product value and financial value." In Web3, products without price elasticity alone cannot sustain user trust. You may be a builder, but in the eyes of users, you're just a "coin with no expected value."

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

So you need to understand: you think you're building a product, but in reality, you're competing for access to financial sentiment.

?Mid-level players: I see good news, I'll pump the market. Users: Speculate in the short term, profit, and run.

The vast majority of Web3 users are short-term, quick-thinking speculators. They don't expect to co-build the platform long-term, but as long as you're pumping the market, maintaining a consistent pace, and showing positive news, they'll jump in.

They're not believers, much less community evangelists. But as long as you create tradability, they'll jump in and make a round.

This isn't a bad thing. On the contrary, it signals that you're making a splash. Users know you're a project with a short-term investment potential, and even if they can't hold onto it, it's worth investing in.

Once you can pull off a few effective pumps, the market will begin to recognize your coin as "marketable." Your token will be added to users' watchlists, and a group of people will be waiting for your next move.

From no one paying attention to participation to staking—this is how the "price elasticity mindset" in Web3 is slowly established.

?Advanced Players: Make users feel "This coin is worth holding onto; selling it quickly will cost them the chance to get back on board."

The ideal, yet most challenging, user mindset is for users to actively hold onto your coins when they're liquidating. What's on their mind isn't "Can I make a quick buck?" but rather: "I might still need this project in the next round." "If this coin goes up in value, I might not be able to buy it back."

To reach this level, a project must establish a complete "Trust × Expectation × Feedback" cycle, meeting at least four conditions:

· The project's long-term direction is clear, and the narrative doesn't jump back and forth;

· Product progress is rhythmic, and users see hope;

· The project has favorable news, and the coin price remains stable

· The coin price is resilient, fostering a sense of emotional resilience: "If it goes up, there's still something to talk about; if it goes down, it can still be pulled back."

This token doesn't necessarily surge daily, but users know it's a worthy asset for the long term, and they'll naturally hold on to it, promote it, and maintain it.

SUI: A True Case of Mindset Reversal

Take $SUI, a coin I recently considered a long-term investment: it. Let's break it down.

SUI boasts a stellar team (this time, the R&D team for Facebook's meta project), and with a multi-billion dollar primary market valuation, it's become a source of FOMO for major investment institutions. Honestly, I didn't think SUI performed well during its initial TGE. The community generally felt the project was arrogant and disconnected from the community. It wasn't until a year and a half ago that SUI suddenly realized the importance of community, continuing to promote its ecosystem while also focusing on the community. I won't go into details about the secondary aspects due to regulatory issues.

Everyone knows what happened next. Suddenly, SUI became a "little SOL" in the market's mindset, making it onto the list of assets users are willing to hold long-term.

Sui has already experienced two events this summer that tested market confidence: first, the security incident at the end of May involving its ecosystem project Cetus, which depleted its approximately $223 million liquidity pool; and second, the massive token unlock in early July, which saw 44 million tokens worth nearly $200 million, one of the largest releases of the entire quarter.

Under normal circumstances, this series of negative events should have led to a price crash and a breakdown in community sentiment. Instead, SUI not only remained resistant to market fluctuations, but actually soared to $4.39 the day before yesterday, reaching a new high since February of this year and becoming one of the most actively traded projects in the sector.

Why did it hold up? The key lies not only in the fact that the Sui team didn't shy away from negative events like the hack, but also in their swift acceptance of responsibility. What's truly significant is that over the past year or so, Sui has slowly transformed user perceptions through its actions, transforming its once-criticized image of being "arrogant and aloof" into a project worthy of trust and long-term investment.

Take the attack on the ecosystem project Cetus as an example. Although the attack was caused by a third-party smart contract, Sui wasn't directly responsible. However, the team didn't shirk responsibility. They immediately suspended the relevant contracts, froze the two affected wallets, and collaborated with Sui validators to initiate a vote. They also partnered with the Sui Foundation to arrange a loan to raise compensation funds to fulfill their promise of "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 approved.

The entire process was transparent, swift, and highly effective, demonstrating once again that this team was resilient and willing to provide the necessary support at critical moments.

It demonstrates: As long as you establish a clear mental anchor early on and consistently deliver after the TGE, the market will give you time and space.

Trust is the only thing I'm willing to bet on.

Many projects approach me for marketing, but I've rarely collaborated with them. It's not because I have high standards, but because I only invest my time and reputation in trustworthy teams.

Before I decide whether to assist, I complete a complete project design. My core criteria are: Is the team trustworthy? And does its community trust them?

If any of these criteria are inconsistent, no matter how compelling the narrative, I won't partner. I don't believe I can improve a project through marketing alone, and I certainly won't place my trust in an irresponsible team.

Ultimately, the core competitiveness of a Web3 project isn't technical barriers or funding. Rather, it's about whether you can create a clear, credible, and relatable place in the hearts of a group of people. This is the collective mind, and it's the true deciding factor in Web3.