Web3 Teams, Stop Wasting Your Marketing Budget on Platform X

Odaily星球日报Опубліковано о 2026-03-12Востаннє оновлено о 2026-03-12

Анотація

Web3 marketing teams are wasting budgets on ineffective X platform campaigns, as traditional promotion strategies have become obsolete. The classic model—announcement, followed by coordinated KOL posts—fails due to new paid partnership disclosures that make ads obvious, reducing engagement. X’s algorithm prioritizes drama, memes, and debates over formal announcements. Using Starknet’s recent strkBTC campaign as a case study, the author notes its low organic reach: only 100+ independent posts about Starknet exceeded 10 likes in February. Instead of sparking discussion, paid KOL promotions are easily identified and ignored. The solution is to flip the strategy: start by building narrative momentum through controversial topics (e.g., “Ethereum L2 vs. Bitcoin L2”), encourage creator debates and community content, and only then issue the announcement. For developer outreach, focus on building ecosystem prestige rather than direct promotion. The key is to create talk-worthy moments, not just distribute news.

Original Author / Stacy Muur

Compiled / Odaily Planet Daily Golem(@web 3_golem)

Every month, Green Dots conducts research on KOL promotional campaigns on Platform X to understand the strategies of other Web3 marketing teams and track which strategies and post styles are truly effective. However, due to the new paid partnership policy introduced by X, which has changed the marketing environment on Platform X(related reading:Musk casually overturns the rice bowl of crypto KOLs), most Web3 project promotion strategies are no longer suitable. Stacy Muur reveals in this article the common problems in many recent Web3 promotional activities, using Starknet as the case study for this analysis.

Author's statement: This is not targeting Starknet; their technical strength remains strong. Despite the many doubts and suspicions from the outside world after the airdrop and TGE, the team continues to release and develop products, which deserves respect. But this article focuses only on one aspect: marketing strategy. Starknet's recent new product promotion is just a typical example.

How did Starknet conduct its advertising?

Starknet recently launched strkBTC [₿] and invited some content creators on Platform X to promote this event. They adopted a very classic promotion model:

  1. First, release an announcement with a promotional video;
  2. Within 12-48 hours of the announcement, KOLs publish collaborative promotional posts;
  3. Subsequently, publish articles specifically explaining the advantages of the product.

Even though this promotion was carried out in late February, to comply with Platform X's paid partnership policy, some creators included the paid partnership label when publishing related posts. But the focus of this article is not on the disclosure of payments, but on the effectiveness of the promotion strategy itself.

On February 10th, around another announcement released by Starknet, their marketing team conducted another KOL promotion. Exactly the same routine: first release a video announcement, then promote through KOLs.

Of course, Starknet also had other promotional methods, such as publishing a few long articles and conducting some promotional activities in the Korean language region.

For the record, I don't know who was responsible for managing this campaign or if any agency was involved. I am merely providing some thoughts from an outsider's perspective, from a marketer's point of view.

One problem is obvious throughout the promotion: the screening of creators involved in the promotion is weak.

X is a perception layer. Ideally, creator promotions on X should bring:

  • More discussion about the brand
  • Trigger more voluntary posts from independent creators
  • Drive the production of more community content
  • Stronger ecosystem activation

But is that what we see? Not really.

If you use simple filtering conditions on X to view popular posts mentioning Starknet in February, the results are obvious.

The most mentioned post was actually from Warhol. Overall, there were only a little over 100 independent posts mentioning Starknet in February that received more than 10 likes. For a well-known L2 ecosystem, this number is not high.

Some popular organic mentions of Starknet included:

  • Mookie's post about token unlocks (approx. 10k views)
  • Warhol's post about the best internship brands in the crypto industry (approx. 16k views)
  • Warhol's L2 rating list (approx. 30k views)
  • santiment's post ranking L2s by developer activity (approx. 50k views)
  • mztacat's post about the "Big Four companies" (approx. 82k views)

That's roughly the extent of Starknet's mentions on Platform X in February. This leads to a more important question, not just concerning Starknet, but concerning the fact that the classic Web3 marketing strategy is gradually failing on Platform X.

Why is the classic Web3 advertising strategy failing?

For years, the default mode of Web3 marketing has been: Announcement -> KOL promotion -> Community discussion.

This classic model worked when X's timeline was less crowded, narratives were strong, and most promotions were not easily identifiable as paid promotions. But the following changes have caused this model to fail.

Paid Disclosure Kills Implicit Spread

Once creators start adding paid disclosure information, this promotion model becomes obvious to fans.

First, users see an announcement, then within the next 24 hours, 5-10 similar promotional posts appear, all with largely identical content. Users can immediately recognize this structure. It doesn't trigger community discussion; instead, it sends a signal that "this is an advertising campaign."

In the environment of Crypto Twitter, advertisements rarely spark community discussion; they are usually just scrolled past by users.

KOL Behavior is Now Very Easy to Identify

Crypto Twitter has matured; people understand how KOL marketing works.

When the same group of creators quotes the same announcement with slightly different wording, it is easily interpreted as a coordinated promotional campaign. And once KOL content is clearly identified as a promotion, user engagement rates drop because the audience switches from curiosity mode to ad-filtering mode.

X Rewards Buzz, Not Announcements

X is not a distribution channel; it's a narrative space. Unless a Web3 project's announcement can trigger the following, they rarely become trending topics:

  • Arguments and debates
  • Meme coins
  • Hot takes
  • Competition between KOLs

Without these dynamic factors, dissemination can only bring brief user reach without truly winning users' minds. Therefore, to truly gain buzz, Web3 projects should change the sequence of their marketing campaigns.

The old promotion flow was: Announcement -> KOL promotion -> Community discussion. The new promotion structure should be: First build buzz -> Spark creator debates -> Generate community content -> Finally announce, so the announcement becomes the final confirmation moment, not the starting point.

If the project skips the narrative stage, promotion is out of the question.

How to redesign a promotion campaign for Starknet

Let's get back to reality. Starknet carries heavy baggage. The previous airdrop phase triggered a lot of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Explanations and promotional videos alone cannot solve this problem; the project needs to control the conversation to resolve it. Different goals require different marketing strategies.

If the goal is to win users' minds

The strategy should be to actively engage in controversy. Don't try to suppress critics; design topics that can spark debate.

For example:

  • "Which L2 is better for developing BTCFi?"
  • "Ethereum L2 vs Bitcoin L2"
  • "Top five ecosystems for BTCFi developers"

Then sponsor posts related to ranking lists, posts comparing Starknet with other projects, and posts with debates. Maybe half the timeline will support Starknet, and the other half will attack Starknet, but both sides increase exposure. Creating drama is not bad marketing; marketing that goes unnoticed is bad.

If the goal is to dominate public opinion

Then stop publishing lengthy PR articles; few people read them. Instead, publish visual infographics, ecosystem maps, competitor comparisons, and short frameworks that KOLs can reuse. Giving creators space to remix content is far more powerful than content they can only quote.

The goal of dominating public opinion is not one good article, but dozens of derivative articles. This is how narratives spread.

If the goal is to attract developers

Then remember that developer acquisition is a B2B model. Publishing announcements on X is not effective for developer onboarding. What projects should do is:

  • Build topic momentum
  • Build ecosystem prestige
  • Show that developers have already succeeded there

Once this trend forms, onboarding developers becomes much easier. Because developers also chase hotspots.

Conclusion

The traditional Web3 promotion model (Release announcement -> KOL promotion) is dying on X. The new model is more like: Design topics -> Spark creator interest -> Trigger discussion -> Let the community take it from there.

The project's announcement is still important, but it should no longer be the beginning of the promotion campaign; it should be the end point.

Пов'язані питання

QAccording to the article, why is the classic Web3 marketing strategy of 'announcement → KOL promotion' no longer effective on X?

AThe strategy is no longer effective due to three main reasons: 1. Paid disclosure labels kill organic spread by making the promotional nature obvious to users. 2. KOL coordinated promotion is now easily identifiable by the mature crypto Twitter audience, causing them to switch to 'ad-filtering mode'. 3. The X platform rewards hot topics, drama, and narratives, not simple announcements, which rarely go viral without these elements.

QWhat does the author propose as the new, more effective structure for a Web3 marketing campaign on X?

AThe author proposes a new structure: Build the narrative first → Spark creator debate → Generate community content → Finally, publish the official announcement. The announcement should be the final confirmation moment, not the starting point.

QWhat was a key problem identified in Starknet's recent promotional campaign, as cited in the case study?

AA key problem was the weak vetting of the creators participating in the promotion, which failed to generate significant independent discussion, voluntary posts from other creators, community content, or stronger ecosystem activation.

QFor the goal of 'winning mindshare', what type of content does the author suggest a project like Starknet should sponsor instead of long articles?

AThe author suggests sponsoring content that creates debate and drama, such as rankings, comparison posts pitting Starknet against other projects, and posts with arguments. Examples include 'Which L2 is better for BTCFi development?' or 'Ethereum L2 vs Bitcoin L2'.

QWhat does the author state is the fundamental difference in how the X platform should be viewed for marketing, as opposed to being a distribution channel?

AThe author states that X is not a distribution channel but a 'narrative venue' or a 'perception layer'. It is a place for narratives, hot takes, memes, and debates, not just for broadcasting announcements.

Пов'язані матеріали

If the AI Bubble Is Already Bursting, Who Will Truly Survive?

If the AI Bubble is Bursting, Who Will Remain? The debate over an AI bubble is intensifying, with figures like Ray Dalio warning of high levels and Jensen Huang seeing immense, early-stage opportunity. Both views hold truth: a speculative bubble in capital markets likely exists, mirroring the dot-com era, but the underlying technological shift is real and transformative. History shows that while bubbles burst—wiping out overvalued companies and speculative capital—they often leave behind critical physical and digital infrastructure. The dot-com bust, for instance, eliminated many firms but left the global fiber optic networks and data centers that enabled the rise of Amazon, Netflix, and cloud computing. Today's massive AI infrastructure investments (projected at trillions by 2030) in data centers, power, cooling, and GPUs may follow a similar path, creating the foundation for future applications. A key divergence from past bubbles is the "Jevons Paradox" effect in AI. As the cost of AI inference has plummeted by over 99.7% since 2023, enterprise spending on AI has skyrocketed. Cheap "tokens" have unlocked vast, previously uneconomical use cases, moving AI from simple chatbots into core business workflows—code generation, legal document review, scientific simulation, and financial analysis. The market is now in a phase of self-correction, weeding out superficial "API-wrapper" startups, but this cleansing process strengthens the ecosystem. The long-term trajectory is clear. The value is gradually shifting from capital expenditure (CapEx) on hardware to operational expenditure (OpEx) on transformative applications. As AI becomes a utility, the winners will be firms that deeply integrate it to solve vertical industry problems in law, healthcare, finance, and manufacturing. The泡沫 will recede, but the foundational shift towards an AI-powered era across all sectors is irreversible. The underlying productive force of AI contains no bubble.

marsbit25 хв тому

If the AI Bubble Is Already Bursting, Who Will Truly Survive?

marsbit25 хв тому

If the AI Bubble Is Already Bursting, Who Will Truly Remain?

**Summary: If the AI Bubble is Bursting, What Will Remain?** The debate around an AI bubble is intensifying, with figures like Ray Dalio warning of high valuations while Jensen Huang sees immense opportunity. This echoes the dot-com bubble, which saw massive wealth destruction but ultimately left behind critical infrastructure like undersea cables and broadband, enabling future giants like Amazon and Netflix. Similarly, today's AI boom involves trillions invested in data centers, power, cooling, and GPUs, while application-layer revenue remains comparatively modest. This investment-disparity signals a bubble. However, the core technological progress is real and accelerating. AI inference costs have plummeted by over 99.7% since 2023, making intelligence increasingly cheap and accessible. This cost collapse is unlocking vast new demand. Instead of reducing spending, enterprises are tripling their AI cloud expenditure. Cheap "tokens" enable AI to move beyond simple chatbots into complex workflows—automating code writing, legal document review, financial analysis, and scientific research. This follows "Jevons's paradox": improved efficiency leads to greater total consumption. The market is now undergoing a necessary purification, weeding out "API-wrapper" startups with no real moat. The deeper evolution involves a shift from capital expenditure (CapEx) on infrastructure to operational expenditure (OpEx) on value-creation in applications. While hardware vendors currently profit most, long-term value will migrate to AI-native firms solving vertical industry problems. Ultimately, a market correction will cleanse speculative excess but will not reverse the AI+ trend. The massive physical and algorithmic infrastructure being built will endure, becoming a cheap, utility-like foundation. Just as the internet became indispensable to all industries post-2000, AI is poised to empower and redefine every sector, moving society irreversibly toward an intelligence-augmented era. The bubble may burst, but the underlying productive momentum is solid.

链捕手31 хв тому

If the AI Bubble Is Already Bursting, Who Will Truly Remain?

链捕手31 хв тому

Microsoft CEO: In the AI Era, How Do You Define a Company's Moat?

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella argues that in the AI era, a company's true competitive edge, or "moat," is not determined by choosing the single most powerful model, but by its ability to build a continuous "learning loop." This system integrates and evolves by connecting human workflows, domain expertise, organizational judgment, and employee experience. He posits that future companies will accumulate two types of capital: Human Capital (employee knowledge, judgment, creativity) and "Token Capital" (a firm's own built and owned AI capabilities). Importantly, AI amplifies rather than devalues human capital. Human direction is essential to guide progress, as computational power alone is aimless. The core opportunity lies in creating a closed-loop system where human and token capital reinforce each other in a compound, self-improving cycle. A company must be able to preserve its unique institutional knowledge—its "company veteran" expertise—even if it switches underlying general-purpose AI models. This requires private evaluation benchmarks, reinforcement learning environments based on internal data, and queryable knowledge bases. Nadella warns against a future where economic value is concentrated by a few dominant models that commoditize entire industries' knowledge. Instead, the priority should be building a broad "frontier ecosystem" where every company, industry, and nation can own its learning loop. This allows organizations to retain control of their intellectual property, amplify employee capabilities, and ensure the economic value created by AI is captured within their own businesses and communities. True corporate sovereignty in the AI age comes from turning organizational knowledge into a compounding system that creates enduring, defensible value.

marsbit1 год тому

Microsoft CEO: In the AI Era, How Do You Define a Company's Moat?

marsbit1 год тому

ETFs Are Just the Ticket: The True Institutionalization of Bitcoin Is Happening Where You Can't See It

Beyond the Bitcoin ETF spotlight, a deeper institutionalization is underway, leveraging Bitcoin as a foundational financial primitive. Institutions are using Bitcoin for purposes long reserved for assets like U.S. Treasuries and gold: as collateral for loans, insurance reserves, and the backbone of rated bonds. Examples include a Barbados-based insurer capitalizing with $40M in Bitcoin reserves and Ledn's $188M securitization of Bitcoin-backed loans, which received the first-ever investment-grade rating (BBB-) from S&P for a digital asset-backed security. This structure was stress-tested during a 27% price drop in early 2026, triggering automatic liquidations that functioned as designed but revealed the systemic risk of synchronized selling across leveraged positions. Infrastructure is evolving to support this, with platforms like Anchorage Digital's Atlas network enabling secure, institutional-grade settlement and collateral management. Strategies like basis trades and corporate treasuries (exemplified by companies like MicroStrategy issuing billions in equity and debt to fund Bitcoin acquisitions) further integrate Bitcoin into financial mechanics. While ETFs solved "how to own" Bitcoin, these developments answer "what to do with it," embedding the asset into the working machinery of finance—as collateral upon which loans, derivatives, and structured products are built. The real, enduring institutional shift is happening in these largely invisible plumbing and financing systems.

marsbit1 год тому

ETFs Are Just the Ticket: The True Institutionalization of Bitcoin Is Happening Where You Can't See It

marsbit1 год тому

ZEC Co-Founder Responds to Orchard Vulnerability: No Signs of Theft, Orchard Pool to Be Sealed

ZEC Co-Founder Addresses Orchard Vulnerability: No Signs of Theft, Plans to Sunset Orchard Pool A security vulnerability was recently discovered in Zcash's Orchard shielded pool, raising key concerns. The primary questions are whether the flaw was exploited, if user funds are safe, whether users can verify the total ZEC supply, and if other similar vulnerabilities exist. Analysis suggests the vulnerability was likely not exploited prior to its discovery. It was found proactively by a researcher using specialized tools, not due to an active breach. The development team and mining pools acted quickly to contain the issue. Typical financially-motivated attacks would likely have left visible on-chain evidence, which has not been observed. User funds in Orchard are considered safe and should be recoverable, assuming no prior exploitation. If the flaw was never used, all legitimate funds can be withdrawn. The article outlines risks associated with moving funds to transparent addresses or other pools, but concludes that leaving assets in place is a reasonable option. Currently, users cannot independently verify that the total ZEC supply hasn't been inflated due to this bug. However, the planned Ironwood network upgrade is designed to resolve this. It will permanently close the Orchard pool to new deposits and internal transfers, allowing only withdrawals. This mechanism will cap total withdrawals at the amount of legitimately deposited funds, enabling anyone to cryptographically verify the supply post-upgrade. Multiple teams, including Shielded Labs, have conducted extensive audits focused on counterfeiting vulnerabilities, assisted by advanced AI tools. No additional flaws of this type have been found so far, increasing confidence that no other similar undisclosed vulnerabilities exist. In summary, evidence indicates the Orchard bug was probably not used, user funds are secure, and no other counterfeiting flaws are currently known. The upcoming Ironwood upgrade will restore users' ability to independently verify the total ZEC supply, closing this chapter.

Foresight News1 год тому

ZEC Co-Founder Responds to Orchard Vulnerability: No Signs of Theft, Orchard Pool to Be Sealed

Foresight News1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片