Discussing "IP Storytelling" in PFP NFTs: Are We Tired of It, and Do Failures Mean No Value or a Wrong Path?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Discussing "IP Storytelling" in PFP NFTs: Are We Tired of It, and Do Failures Mean No Value or a Wrong Path?
The excessive pursuit of "narrative" is destroying this industry.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: sleepy
Preface
I had a cup of霸王茶姬 during dinner and sure enough couldn't sleep. Lying in bed, I kept thinking about the conversation earlier in the evening with my family in the Little Ghost group chat—discussing PFP projects building IPs, along with my experiences and growth since starting this entrepreneurial journey. So I decided to write this article.
It must be emphasized that this article is filled with strong personal opinions, but it does not mean I am endorsing any project other than Little Ghost (WeirdoGhostGang). Some views expressed here may contradict your own or even prevailing market sentiment. Independent thinking and rational discussion are always welcome.
The obsession with "narrative" is destroying this industry
A couple days ago while scrolling through Twitter, I came across a tweet—I can't remember who posted it—that said: "I'm tired of PFP project narratives."
Reading that stirred up mixed emotions. From a retail investor’s perspective, “building an IP” simply isn’t attractive enough, especially in an industry flooded with all kinds of “narratives.” Web3 breeds narratives. A grand narrative means a project's market cap could skyrocket, evolving into various forms of bullish momentum, ultimately reflected in token price. In a way, retail investors don’t crave new narratives because they care about industry development—they want to make money.
That’s not scary. I actually support evaluating projects from this angle—it can even serve as a form of oversight. What’s terrifying is when teams inflate valuations by chasing trends, stacking on hype upon hype, promising visions they can’t deliver, then eventually pull the rug or just give up. That kind of outcome is catastrophic for the industry. What good is telling ten thousand “new stories” if none ever come true? The worst thing that can happen to an emerging industry is stagnation.
Beyond macro concerns, overemphasizing narrative also has severe negative impacts on companies themselves. To survive long-term, a company needs revenue. Over-prioritizing narrative often leads to neglecting actual income. Teams burn cash chasing “grand ideals,” raising round after round—but without a healthy business model, funding will eventually dry up. And if you rely on selling tokens in secondary markets as your revenue stream, then the project's perceived vitality becomes entirely dependent on whether the price chart looks good.
I believe the excessive pursuit of “narrative” is destroying this industry. Compared to projects hyping up wild expectations, I deeply respect those quietly building real value—those who are truly BUIDLing rather than puffing smoke. You’re free to chase whatever project maximizes your profits, but please don’t ignore or belittle the genuine builders. And to project teams: stay grounded. Industry progress lifts all boats, and in the end, you’ll have a dignified exit.
Why do so many projects trying to "build IP" fail?
Now let’s talk about “building IP.” Given how many projects claiming to build IP have died, many now interpret “building IP” as synonymous with “having no real plan for the future.”
Understandable—but I’d like to take a more rational look at this issue. Far from thinking building IP is wrong, I firmly believe the greatest value of PFP projects lies precisely in IP. And pursuing IP isn’t a flawed strategy; it’s actually proven. Compared to ten thousand untested “narratives,” this is a massive advantage.
In my view, these failed projects didn’t die because “building IP” was the wrong goal—their failure stems from inaction or lack of capability. Beyond profile pictures, what content have they created for their IP? Have they invested effort into marketing and promotion? Have they studied and understood the methodology of building IP? Building IP isn’t something you do with words alone. Without real investment and effort, why expect returns?
What does Web3 mean for IP?
T0-level IPs in Web2 that earn billions don’t need Web3. But due to monopolistic dynamics in Web2, it’s increasingly hard for new IPs to find space to grow—that’s exactly why new IPs need Web3.
Web3 acts as a catalyst—enabling earlier fundraising and faster cold starts—giving new IPs access to capital and momentum early on, allowing them to scale outreach much sooner. Web3 provides a lever: while it can’t instantly catapult a new IP into the T1 tier, it can help jump quickly from T5 to T3, even T2. But becoming a world-class IP still demands tremendous effort and time—there’s no shortcut. Yet going from T5 to T2 or T3 is a gap many new IPs in Web2 could never cross in a lifetime.
Another lever is pumping. Anyone building in Web3 should neither ignore nor shy away from token price—this point needs little elaboration. But how and when you use this lever matters greatly, otherwise you easily become a charity god handing out money. As Pang Yangqing once said, pumping isn’t the goal—it’s a tool, meant to achieve objectives like increasing visibility—not merely pushing the price past some arbitrary level. No project can pump forever. Moreover, using this lever requires solid groundwork first. Relentless pumping without building only turns your project into a meme. Build first, BUIDL first—that’s how you gain true believers and sustainable growth.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@sleepy0x13
