2026-01-02 23:23:51

A top-tier public chain ecosystem has a common characteristic: they do not blindly chase after any project. Truly promising projects often have a key feature — they are backed by real application scenarios and a genuine user base, rather than just a token or Token issuance tool.

In other words, if what you build is innovative enough and practical enough for users to actually use, then this ecosystem will actively promote it. The token itself is not the main focus.

From the perspective of collaboration experience, these leading ecosystems are highly efficient in communication with project teams and have a pragmatic attitude. They care whether the ecosystem truly becomes more valuable, rather than short-term promotional effects. For teams that want to do serious work, such partners are indeed very helpful.

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.

15 Likes

Reward
15
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TopBuyerForever

· 3h ago

That's right, truly building products and just wanting to reap quick gains are completely two different paths. --- Stop right there, do top-tier ecosystems really care about this? I still think whoever raises more funds is the one that succeeds. --- The core is whether there are genuine users; everything else is虚假的. --- This sounds comfortable to hear, but in reality, the strength of token speculation often determines life or death. --- Agreed, but the problem is that most projects have no real application scenarios at all. --- Well, isn't that just saying don't follow the trend blindly? Why can't I just control myself? --- The criteria for ecosystem selection are clear; it depends on whether we retail investors can distinguish between true and false. --- Haha, those who do things seriously are indeed popular, but most are just betting on the atmosphere. --- This is the attitude we should promote, but unfortunately, the market just loves to hype stories.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropFatigue

· 20h ago

That's right, a truly good ecosystem is so realistic, with no false pretenses. --- It's just the same old story, as I always say, having users is the key, no matter how many tokens there are, if no one uses them, it's useless. --- Indeed, unlike some ecosystems that boast every day, but in the end, the project teams all run away. --- That's why I am optimistic about them. No hype, just a serious attitude towards product development. --- It should have been like this a long time ago. There are too many empty projects in the market relying on publicity, which is pointless. --- The key is whether the ecosystem team is truly invested. Talking without action is useless. --- I agree, practicality outweighs everything. That is the true long-term value. --- But to be honest, how many ecosystems can really do that? Most are just riding the hype. --- Projects with a real user base indeed go far, which is a hard indicator. --- Honestly, the team that works diligently is most afraid of encountering unpractical ecosystem partners. --- Now I finally understand what a high-quality ecosystem is. It's not about hype, but about stable output.

View OriginalReply0

0xOverleveraged

· 20h ago

You're right, but the reality is that most projects are still surviving on hype and narratives. Projects with real users have already started making money; do they still need ecological hype? I appreciate the pragmatic attitude of top-tier ecosystems; it's just that the domestic scene is still too impatient. Honestly, the era of Bitcoin has passed; now it's really about whether there is genuine demand. Token price ≠ project value. How can so many people not understand such a simple principle? Strict ecosystem screening actually shows that they are serious, unlike some chains that list all kinds of trash.

View OriginalReply0

OneBlockAtATime

· 20h ago

You're right, but the reality is that most projects are still hyping concepts, with very few having actual users. --- Having a real user base is the most critical point; everything else is虚的 (虚假的 - fake or虚幻的 - illusory). --- That's why a good ecosystem can survive longer, while trash projects will die sooner or later. --- The core question is, who can truly distinguish which are genuine applications and which are just空气 (air - vaporware)? --- But to be honest, most investors don't care whether there are users or not; they just want quick arbitrage. --- Agreed, when choosing projects within an ecosystem, this criterion alone should be enough. --- Practicality > token price; this logic is so simple it doesn't seem like common sense in the crypto world. --- Remember those projects with only a few hundred daily active users that still boast about being the number one ecosystem? Laughable.

View OriginalReply0

SerLiquidated

· 20h ago

That's right, but how many projects are really doing something useful now? Most are still just hype. --- It sounds idealistic, but in actual collaborations, ecosystem partners still look at token prices and popularity. --- Exactly, I've worked on some projects and have deep experience. Truly reliable ecosystems are indeed different. --- The problem is that most ecosystems can't tell the difference between practicality and hype. --- Haha, finally someone said it, but how many first-tier ecosystems can there be like that? --- That's why I favor certain small public chains, and I don't trust those that shout loudly. --- In my opinion, ecosystems that can stick to this standard are already listed; the rest are just storytelling.

View OriginalReply0

Ser_Liquidated

· 20h ago

That's right, there are too many air projects now. Having only tokens without users is indeed a sign to exit. A truly good ecosystem is like this—only recognizing strength, not fame. Honestly, this attitude makes me more optimistic about those teams that focus quietly on building products. Having an actual user base is hard currency; short-term hype and speculation should have been eliminated long ago. I agree. Compared to ecosystems that cut leeks every day, those who do solid work are more worth following. This point is so correct. The core value of an ecosystem is essentially the accumulation of users and applications. Why does it seem like so many projects still don't understand this principle? Teams that focus on doing serious work should indeed be more valued by the ecosystem. Token hype ≠ ecosystem vitality. Too many people are getting this wrong.

View OriginalReply0

SatoshiHeir

· 20h ago

It should be pointed out that this argument precisely demonstrates a proposition that has been repeatedly falsified by the market. On-chain data shows that the so-called "first-tier ecosystem" project selection logic has long become an agent of capital discourse. Projects with real application scenarios often die in the indifference of ecological "pragmatism." The current situation is just like that, to put it nicely. Based on the historical documents I have verified, how many of the projects from 2017 with "actual applications" still remain? Brand effect ≠ ecological value, and this equation has been thoroughly overturned in practice. Obviously, what they care about is never ecological value, but whether they can use your story to raise money. Listen to me—tokens are indeed not the focus, but that’s because the focus is fundamentally not on the technical essence, but on narrative rights.

View OriginalReply0