2026-01-18 11:27:05

Many projects are just telling stories and doing marketing, but what truly determines their longevity?

I’ve discovered an interesting logical chain—

Consensus always precedes price. Prices can fluctuate, but consensus determines the project's underlying resilience.

Community is more critical than the team. No matter how strong the founder is, they can't compete with a group of like-minded people.

Engagement far surpasses speculative mentality. True builders and followers have vastly different long-term returns.

Ultimately, these kinds of projects are not products pushed out, but the result of everyone working step by step together. Without marketing packaging, it’s purely consensus accumulation. This is what Web3 should look like.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

11 Likes

Reward
11
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

HashRateHustler

· 6h ago

That's very true, consensus is the key. Really, I've seen too many projects just tell stories; and what happened? The community disperses and it cools down. Participation is what I focus on here. A bunch of retail investors watch the price for dips, which is completely different from the people actually doing the work. Projects without packaging often last the longest, which is a bit counterintuitive but true. Community > Team, I agree with this. No matter how strong the leader is, there must be followers.

View OriginalReply0

Ser_Liquidated

· 6h ago

That's so true, consensus is king. Projects that only tell stories will eventually fade away. To truly assess long-term potential, look at whether there are genuine builders in the community, not just the number of funding rounds. I've experienced this firsthand—many teams are luxurious, but their communities are cold and inactive, and they all eventually die. Price fluctuations are nothing; without underlying consensus support, it's just air. Right now, I only focus on projects with organic growth. Even if they're small, they're a hundred times better than just hype trading.

View OriginalReply0

ChainMaskedRider

· 7h ago

You're right, but the reality is that 99% of projects are still bragging wildly. Projects with real consensus have long since accumulated core supporters. I've seen quite a few projects with strong communities, but the key is whether they can survive the downturn. These words sound ideal, but in practice, you still need money to flood the market. Consensus is indeed valuable, but only if the project doesn't die. High engagement ≠ high returns. Can we really say this causal relationship is absolute? Looking at projects that still shout about pure consensus, most of them haven't secured funding. The ideal Web3 image sounds good, but investors don't really care about that.

View OriginalReply0

SilentObserver

· 7h ago

You're so right. These days, many projects are just bragging, and few are actually getting things done. I totally agree on the consensus part. When the price drops, a lot of people run away, only true believers stick around. That being said, it still depends on community activity. Whatever the team says doesn't really matter. This is the Web3 ecosystem I want to see—no more of those empty promises.

View OriginalReply0

WenMoon42

· 7h ago

That's right, consensus is indeed easy to overlook. To be honest, I've seen too many projects spend their marketing budgets excessively over the past two years, only to end up with a fragmented community. It still depends on genuine engagement; superficial efforts will eventually be exposed. Recently, I finally understood why some small projects are actually more stable—they bring in people who are self-recruited. This summary hits home.

View OriginalReply0