Most public chains start by building tools first and then praying for users to come.
But there are different approaches. What truly makes a difference? Starting from zero to acquire users, or directly migrating existing users?
Look at ZEPETO: a user base of 500 million + 5 million KOL resources. This is not just a pile of marketing channels; it’s an embedded distribution capability within the ecosystem. The project team directly owns the engine to launch.
From another perspective, this is the difference between execution and narrative. Many projects sound good—"Creator Chain" sounds promising. But can it really be implemented? It depends on whether there is an existing distribution network. With one, even the most impressive story can be transformed into real on-chain activities. Without it, just having concepts is useless.
So the key is not the product itself, but what you use to launch the entire ecosystem.
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.
14 Likes
Reward
14
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GasFeeCrier
· 7h ago
At the moment when 500 million users arrived, I understood—this is what true moat is.
View OriginalReply0
DevChive
· 01-13 05:47
Wow, ZEPETO's move is brilliant, a direct blow with dimensionality reduction.
View OriginalReply0
Layer2Observer
· 01-13 00:05
Technically, the priority relationship between "distribution network" and "product" has been reversed here. Having a network does not equal retention; the key data is how many of ZEPETO's 500 million users can be converted to the chain.
View OriginalReply0
TradFiRefugee
· 01-13 00:05
It's really hitting home; most projects are just masterful at pie-in-the-sky promises.
Having a distribution network is the real game-changer; without it, it's just empty hype.
ZEPETO is indeed impressive, with 500 million users directly pouring in, unlike some projects that just boast every day.
No matter how attractive the concept is, it needs real users with actual money to support it.
Starting the engine > the product itself—someone finally dares to say this equation out loud.
View OriginalReply0
SerumSqueezer
· 01-12 23:59
500 million users take off directly, this is the right way.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-9ad11037
· 01-12 23:52
Basically, it's whether there is an existing distribution network; everything else is just虚的.
View OriginalReply0
SeeYouInFourYears
· 01-12 23:43
500 million users is indeed impressive, but honestly, whether ZEPETO can truly activate the on-chain ecosystem depends on what happens next.
Oh, I see, it's about whether there's an existing traffic pool.
No matter how good the concept sounds, it still needs to be implemented; this point is well put.
It's another era of storytelling.
Most public chains start by building tools first and then praying for users to come.
But there are different approaches. What truly makes a difference? Starting from zero to acquire users, or directly migrating existing users?
Look at ZEPETO: a user base of 500 million + 5 million KOL resources. This is not just a pile of marketing channels; it’s an embedded distribution capability within the ecosystem. The project team directly owns the engine to launch.
From another perspective, this is the difference between execution and narrative. Many projects sound good—"Creator Chain" sounds promising. But can it really be implemented? It depends on whether there is an existing distribution network. With one, even the most impressive story can be transformed into real on-chain activities. Without it, just having concepts is useless.
So the key is not the product itself, but what you use to launch the entire ecosystem.