项目方必读:跟着释永信学如何通过群体心智做市场?

深潮Опубліковано о 2025-07-30Востаннє оновлено о 2025-07-31

只要你前期建立了清晰的心智锚点,并在 TGE 后持续兑现,市场是会给你时间和空间的。

撰文:Jiayi

1981 年,16 岁的释永信进入了当时几乎被遗忘的少林寺。那时寺里只有 9 个和尚,靠种地和香火艰难度日。转折点出现在一年后:李连杰主演的《少林寺》电影引爆全国,古寺一夜之间成为大众关注的焦点。

释永信精准捕捉到了这次「心智红利」。他没有发明功夫,也不是武艺最高强的那个,却完成了一次跨时代的品牌定位:他将「少林寺 = 中国功夫」的心智烙印,深植进了全球观众的脑海。

在之后的几十年里,他系统整理武术典籍、推动表演出海、开展文化传播、打造商业授权,从一个宗教场所出发,把少林打造成了全球「功夫认知」的入口。更重要的是,这种认知并不止于「文化影响」,而最终变现为真金白银:门票、IP、地产、无形资产管理……认知成了生意的入口。

这,就是「群体心智」的力量:当你在用户脑海中留下明确、唯一的标签,你就有资格讲故事、定价格,并长期存在。

群体心智,与 Web3 项目的关系到底有多大?

你可能会问:一个和尚在少林寺搞了四十年的品牌,有什么值得 Web3 项目学的?

我让你看释永信,不是因为他懂直播、讲文化 IP,而是因为他完成了一件几乎所有 Web3 项目都在努力却极少做到的事:在全球用户心中,绑定了一个关键词的定义权。

Web2 做的是业务,当然看市占率,即你的垂直赛道你的用户占比体量。因为传统商业无论是估值还是生意本身都离不开产品落地后在市场的直接竞争力。而 Web3 项目我个人认为:项目的「群体心智占有」作用大大超过「实战占有率」。

但「关注群体心智」不是一句空话,它贯穿了项目从 0 到 1 的每一个阶段,特别是 TGE 这个关键节点。TGE 之后有了流动性,项目的运行逻辑会彻底改变。你不再只是讲故事、拉关注,而是开始面对真实市场的定价、套利和博弈。这种转变非常剧烈,一旦准备不足,前期所有的热度和期待都可能在几天内迅速瓦解。

所以项目方必须提前思考:在 TGE 之前,你到底该抢占什么样的用户心智?该讲怎样的叙事?该把自己摆在用户脑海中的哪个位置?

接下来,我们分开细谈。

TGE 前,项目方该如何构建「群体心智」?

对于大多数 Web3 项目而言,TGE 是第一次站上公开市场的舞台。但真正决定成败的,其实是在 TGE 之前。这个阶段,是你抢占用户心智的黄金窗口。它不仅关乎代币能否顺利上线,更关乎你能不能借助这次「集体注意力时刻」,在用户脑海中种下一个可被长期记住的认知标签。

你如何通过这段时间,把项目的定位讲清楚、信任打牢固、预期稳得住,决定了你能不能收获真正有价值的早期参与者。否则你等来的,可能不是启动,而是终结。

我通常会建议还没 TGE 的项目,先做一次「心智三问」自查:

1. 你在用户心中,属于哪个 Tier?

你是这个赛道的头部选手?还是边缘项目?这背后其实是一个非常现实的公式:

用户对你项目的 Tier 认知 = 对你 TGE 的预期值 = 愿意投入多少时间关注你 = 你真实的数据表现等等

你真实的数据表现和用户参与度,往往是用户主观认知你「值不值得押注」的外显结果。这些都不完全来自你做了什么,更来自你「看上去是第几梯队的」。

2. 用户到底记住了你什么?

这可能是 Web3 创业者最常高估自己的一点。很多团队在讲解项目时逻辑严密、条理清晰,但当我听了二十分钟之后,还是会问一句:「所以你们的爆点是什么?」

现实很残酷。在这个聚焦力无比碎片化的市场,每天有无数项目宣传,不要指望用户真正的读懂你。他们只会记住能带来联想、能产生情绪的那几个关键词。所以你一定要做减法,把所有内容最终提炼出用户可以「带得走」的三件事:容易记、能激发赚钱想象力、与未来爆发潜力有关。

说人话,是大多数项目最缺的能力。

3. 群体信任是否稳得住?

如何打造一个受信于用户的项目?这是最容易被忽略的一点,也是最容易被击穿的一层。

哪怕你技术强、叙事牛,一旦用户对你的人设、团队、行为模式产生质疑,信任一旦塌方,心智就会自动脱锚。

信任崩塌很多时候不是因为大事,而是一些看起来不值一提的小事积累起来的。比如,用户提个问题没人回,问了几次都石沉大海;本来说好什么时候发奖励,拖了又拖,连个解释都没有;社区里有人开始质疑,团队却集体装死,或者冷冷一句「我们会内部讨论」;甚至有时候,外面看着项目讲得头头是道,背后却被传「这就是一轮套利局」。

这些事每一件看起来都不大,但就是这种「说一套、做一套」的感觉,会一点点击穿用户最初的信任感,尤其是那批最早的支持者。他们原本是你最宝贵的资产,是真心相信你故事的人,但一旦信任裂缝出现,他们离场最快,也最不会回头。

正如全世界提到中国功夫,大多数人第一反应不是咏春、八极、太极,而是:少林。咏春拳并不差,但它没有迎来它的释永信。你要成为那个给项目建立集体心智的人。

TGE 之后,项目正式进入「金融标的」状态

TGE 之后,项目不再只是产品、愿景、故事,而是成为了一个有价格、有流动性、有二级交易的金融资产。你是否值钱、值不值得买、能不能涨,开始以最公开、最冰冷的方式被验证。

首先变化的是用户结构。曾经那些陪你讲理想、跑测试网、活跃社区的早期用户,身份也发生了转变。他们现在既是使用者,也是交易者。而更大的一波交易者,此刻才刚刚进场。他们不是来「听你讲故事」的,而是来问一个更直接的问题:「你这个币,有没有赚钱机会?」

Web3 很少有是「产品无可替代」的。你哪怕做得比竞品好 20%、30%,只要币价没有动静、市场没有波段,你依然会被迅速抛弃。用户不会给你时间和耐心去成长,他们会立刻去追那个「看起来更能涨」的项目。

因此,项目方必须正面回答一个问题:为什么别人要买你的币?

这背后,其实对应的是三类典型的用户心智模型:

🌞低阶玩家:我产品好。 用户:好不好不重要,反正我不是不敢买。

这类项目最常见的心理是:「我们技术领先、产品体验好、团队很认真」。但市场不会因为你努力就给你回报。

用户的反应通常是:「你说得再好,有波动吗?没有?那我不敢买。」

这是典型的「产品价值和金融价值割裂」。在 Web3,只有产品,没有价格弹性,是撑不起用户信任的。你可以是 builder,但在用户眼里,你只是一个「没有预期差的币」。

现实是,产品体验早已不是稀缺品,但能调动注意力的价格预期才是。

所以你需要明白:你以为自己是在构建产品,其实你在竞争的是金融情绪的心智入口。

🌞中阶级玩家:我有利好,我拉盘 用户:短期投机一下,获利我赶紧跑

Web3 绝大多数用户,是短平快的投机者。他们也不奢望长期共建,但只要你有拉盘、有节奏、有利好,他们就会进来参与。

他们不是信仰者,更不是社区布道者。但只要你制造了「可交易性」,他们就会进场做一轮。

这不是坏事。相反,这说明你有「动静」了。用户知道你是一个可以做波段的项目,哪怕不能抱死,也值得蹲点。

只要你能做成几次有效拉盘,市场就会开始默认你是个「有行情」的币。你的代币会被加进用户的 watchlist,会有一批人专门等你下一次出手。

从没人关注 → 有人参与 → 有人蹲点,这就是 Web3 中「价格弹性心智」的慢慢建立的过程。

高阶玩家:让用户觉得「这个币值得留着,卖飞就上不去车了」

最理想、也是最难打下的用户心智,是当用户在清仓时,主动留下你的币。他们心中浮现的不是「能不能赚快钱」,而是:「这个项目,下一轮我可能还用得上。」 「这个币,一旦涨了我可能就买不回来了。」

要达到这个层级,项目必须建立起一个完整的「信任 × 预期 × 反馈」循环,至少满足四个条件:

·项目长期方向清晰,叙事不会反复横跳;

·产品进展有节奏,用户看得见希望;

·项目方有利好,币价不疲软

·币价有韧性,能形成「上去了还有得讲、跌下去也能再拉」的情绪弹性;

这种代币不一定天天暴涨,但用户心里知道,「你是值得长期参与的资产」,自然会留仓、传播、维护。

SUI:一个心智反转的真实案例

拿一个最近我把它放到了长期标的的币:$SUI。来拆解一下

SUI 坐拥豪华的团队(这次 facebook 的 meta 项目的产研团队),几十亿美金的一级市场估值也不乏成为了各大投资机构的为之 FOMO 对象。实话说,TGE 初期我认为 SUI 的表现并不好,社区整体感受是,项目方高傲自大不贴近社区。直到一年半以前,SUI 突然意识到了社区的重要性,一手继续推生态一手抓社区。二级层面因为法规问题就不多说。

之后发生的事情大家就都知道了。突然间,SUI 在市场心智层面成为了「小 SOL」。挤入了,用户愿意长期持有资产名单。

其实 Sui 在今年夏天已经经历了两件对市场信心构成考验的事件:一是 5 月底生态项目Cetus 遭遇安全事故,导致约 2.23 亿美元的流动性池被耗尽;二是 7 月初迎来 4400 万枚、价值近 2 亿美元的大额代币解锁,是整个季度最大的释放之一。

按照常规节奏,这种连环负面本应带来价格崩盘和社区情绪崩溃。但结果却相反:SUI 不仅没有被市场抛弃,反而在大前天涨到了 $4.39,创下了今年 2 月以来的新高,成为板块内最具交易热度的项目之一。

为什么它扛住了?其实关键不只在于 Sui 团队对黑客事件等负面情况没有回避、而是迅速承担责任。真正重要的是,Sui 在过去一年多的时间里,用行动慢慢改变了用户对它的认知,把原本被吐槽「高傲冷漠」的形象,一点点拉回成了一个「值得信任、能长期押注」的项目。

以生态项目 Cetus 被攻击为例,虽然这是由第三方智能合约引发的风险,Sui 并非直接责任方。但团队并没有甩锅,不仅立即暂停相关合约、冻结两笔涉事钱包、合作 Sui 验证节点发起投票,还联合 Sui 基金会安排贷款,筹集补偿资金来承诺「全额赔付」受害者。最终 90.9% 验证人投票支持释放 1.62 亿美元冻结资产,赔偿方案顺利通过。

整个过程透明、迅速、带有极强执行力,也让外界不仅一次真正意识到:这个团队在关键时刻,是扛得住、愿意兜底的。

它给大家示范的是:只要你前期建立了清晰的心智锚点,并在 TGE 后持续兑现,市场是会给你时间和空间的。

信任,是我唯一愿意押注的方向

很多项目会来找我做市场,但我合作的项目一直很少。不是我眼光多高,而是我只愿意把自己的时间和信用投入到值得信任的团队里。

在我决定是否协助之前,我都会做完整的项目 DD,核心判断标准只有两个:这个团队是否值得我信任?它的社区是否相信他们?

如果有一点不成立,那无论 narrative 多漂亮,我都会选择不合作。我不认为我能靠一场营销帮项目变好,更不会把信任交给一个不负责任的团队。

因为说到底最终 Web3 项目的核心竞争力,不是技术壁垒,也不是融资额。而是你能不能在一群人心中,留下一个清晰、可信、值得被转述的位置。

这就是群体心智,也是 Web3 真正的胜负手。

Пов'язані матеріали

Bitcoin's 'Rally Ends,' Officially Entering the Later Stage of a Bear Market?

Bitcoin prices declined 13% this week, reversing the recent rebound and signaling a likely transition into the later stages of a bear market. Key on-chain metrics deteriorated, with the short-term holder cost basis falling below the Realized Price—a pattern last seen in early 2022, characteristic of bear market maturity. The rally to ~$82k proved to be a bear market bounce, as evidenced by the 90-day realized profit/loss ratio failing to sustain above the bullish threshold of 2. Daily realized losses surged to $1.35B, including significant selling from long-term holders who accumulated near cycle tops, indicating ongoing supply redistribution. Price was rejected almost precisely at the aggregate US spot ETF cost basis of ~$83k, turning that level into resistance and leaving the average ETF investor underwater again. Spot market selling pressure intensified, with the 7-day volume delta turning significantly negative to its weakest level since February. While a major long liquidation event cleared over $400M in leverage, spot demand has not yet stepped in to absorb the resulting supply. Options markets continue pricing in higher future volatility (elevated volatility risk premium) and maintain a skew toward put options, reflecting persistent demand for downside protection, though not yet panic. Overall, market structure remains fragile. Sustained recovery likely requires a reclaim of the ETF cost basis, a shift back to positive spot demand, and a slowdown in realized loss-taking. Until then, the market risks further downside or extended consolidation within the broader bear trend.

Foresight News6 хв тому

Bitcoin's 'Rally Ends,' Officially Entering the Later Stage of a Bear Market?

Foresight News6 хв тому

How Risky is the "Death Spiral" of MSTR and STRC?

Summary: This article explores the perceived "death spiral" risk between MicroStrategy (MSTR), its Bitcoin holdings, and its perpetual preferred stock (STRC), drawing comparisons to the LUNA-UST collapse. While both systems feature price anchors, high yields for holders, and potential feedback loops, their core mechanisms differ fundamentally. The MSTR-STRC structure relies on continuous financing to sustain its high dividend payouts, primarily through stock ATM offerings. A negative feedback cycle could occur: falling MSTR stock price makes raising equity capital harder, increasing pressure to sell Bitcoin, which undermines STRC confidence and further depresses MSTR. However, unlike LUNA-UST's automated, direct linkage, the MSTR-STRC loop is weaker and has brakes: STRC dividends can be deferred or rates lowered, and STRC holders have a $100/share liquidation preference in bankruptcy, providing a price floor. The company's sustainability hinges on its ability to continue financing. Its current ~$900 million USD reserves cover only about 6.3 months of its ~$1.71 billion annual interest/dividend burden. The next six months are critical, aligning with both the potential bottom in Bitcoin's four-year cycle and the depletion timeline of its reserves. While a LUNA-style catastrophic collapse is deemed highly unlikely due to structural differences, the key question is whether MicroStrategy can navigate this period through healthy deleveraging to restart its capital engine.

Foresight News24 хв тому

How Risky is the "Death Spiral" of MSTR and STRC?

Foresight News24 хв тому

How Much Debt Does Strategy Really Have? Is There a Risk of Implosion?

MicroStrategy's Debt Risk: A Turning Point in the "Never Sell" Strategy As of June 3, 2026, MicroStrategy holds 843,706 bitcoins (valued at ~$53.1B) but faces significant financial obligations. Its capital structure includes $6.75B in convertible notes and $15.48B in perpetual preferred stock (led by the $8.5B STRC series), creating an annual payout burden of ~$1.71B. With software revenue at only ~$500M, interest and dividend obligations far exceed operating income. A critical shift occurred in late May 2026 when the company sold 32 bitcoins for ~$2.5M to cover dividends, breaking CEO Michael Saylor's long-standing "never sell" pledge. This symbolic move triggered a sharp decline in both Bitcoin's price and MSTR stock, reflecting market fears about cash flow sustainability. The core of the strain is the STRC perpetual preferred stock, designed as a "permanent loan" with no maturity date but requiring high monthly dividends (currently 11.5%). Its business model relies on a three-part cycle: issuing new STRC shares, using proceeds to buy more Bitcoin and fund a USD reserve, and using that reserve to pay dividends. This cycle depends on continuous investor demand for STRC and Bitcoin's price appreciation. Analysis shows Bitcoin needs to appreciate at least 2.3% annually to cover the $1.71B in yearly obligations at current holdings. With Bitcoin price down ~22% from March 2026 highs, this pressure has intensified. The company's $900M USD reserve can only cover about 7 months of payments if STRC issuance stalls. Key risks are not immediate bankruptcy or forced Bitcoin liquidation (as BTC is not collateral), but rather: 1) The erosion of MSTR's premium to its Bitcoin holdings (mNAV), which would cripple its ability to raise cheap capital; 2) A vicious cycle where stagnant Bitcoin prices reduce STRC demand, draining the USD reserve and forcing BTC sales, further depressing prices. The period from February 2027 to September 2028 is a crucial test, with over $5.9B in convertible notes facing put options or maturity. In essence, MicroStrategy has evolved from a simple Bitcoin holder into a complex financial entity acting like a "private Bitcoin bank," leveraging its BTC holdings to create layered financial products. Its survival depends on maintaining Bitcoin's price trend, its stock premium, and market appetite for its preferred shares. The recent token sale marks not a betrayal of its Bitcoin thesis, but an admission that the leveraged strategy must eventually be paid for.

marsbit34 хв тому

How Much Debt Does Strategy Really Have? Is There a Risk of Implosion?

marsbit34 хв тому

Anthropic Cries Wolf: Is the AGI Threat Real, or Just an IPO Story?

Anthropic has published an article titled "When AI builds itself," discussing the emerging concept of "recursive self-improvement," where AI begins to actively participate in designing, training, testing, and optimizing its own subsequent versions. The company presents internal data showing that by May 2026, over 80% of code merged into its codebase was written by Claude, its AI model. Claude's capabilities have expanded to handling complex, open-ended engineering tasks, achieving a 76% success rate in such areas, and even contributing to research processes, such as optimizing code performance and conducting AI safety experiments. Anthropic outlines an evolution from human-driven development to AI-assisted workflows, culminating in the current stage where AI agents can autonomously write, run, and delegate code. The company cautions that the path toward a "closed loop," where AI continuously improves itself, is becoming visible. It calls for coordinated global mechanisms to potentially slow or pause frontier AI development to allow safety research and societal structures to catch up. However, the timing of this warning coincides with Anthropic's preparations for an IPO, framing the narrative not just as a safety concern but also as a demonstration of Claude's advanced capabilities and its integral role in accelerating Anthropic's own R&D—creating a potential "flywheel" effect for competitive advantage. This contrasts with OpenAI's recent, more policy-oriented discussion of the same risks, highlighting the competitive dynamics in the AI industry as companies position themselves in both the technological and regulatory landscape.

marsbit1 год тому

Anthropic Cries Wolf: Is the AGI Threat Real, or Just an IPO Story?

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片