AMA Full Record | From the New Public Chain War to Web3: Where Are the Opportunities?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
AMA Full Record | From the New Public Chain War to Web3: Where Are the Opportunities?
Several seasoned Web3 practitioners delved into topics such as the Curve War, competition among new public blockchains, the rise of Layer 2 solutions, the emergence of Eastern NFTs, and shifts in VC paradigms.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsEditor's Note: This article compiles the remarks of guests from the first community event held in FTX’s Chinese Discord server. Several deep participants in Web3 discussed hot topics including the Curve Wars, new chain competition, L2 developments, the rise of Eastern NFTs, and shifts in VC paradigms.
Host: Sally from Sino Global Capital
Guests: Johnson from GBV; Rui from HashKey Capital; Benson, Taiwan community partner at FTX; Min, founder of TechFlow; 0xTodd from Nothing Research; Bowen from Smrti Labs
Live Location: FTX - Chinese Discord
Sally: Q1: The recent Curve Wars have energized the Curve ecosystem, including the CVX battle. How else might the DeFi landscape continue to “evolve”? Some even anticipate the emergence of ve(NFT). What are your thoughts?
OxTodd: I’ve always believed that various projects on Curve rely heavily on its so-called "divine support." Without Curve’s backing, these pegged assets would barely have any yield-generating use cases. The continuous $CRV rewards seem to be their most critical utility.
Take a stablecoin starting with M—looking at on-chain data, you’ll see it either sits in Curve or moves through cross-chain bridges into other chains’ versions of Curve. People quickly realized—the divine milk cow only produces milk at a limited rate. Given this scarcity, there needed to be a mechanism to allocate these rewards, which led to Convex and vote-bribery ecosystems like Votium built atop it. Bribery sustained for quite some time, with leverage ratios around 1:3—meaning every $1 in bribes could influence $3 worth of CRV emissions.
But now it’s getting more competitive. So some beneficiaries began thinking about how to capture even more of this milk. That’s when AC proposed ve(3,3). Reading between the lines, he wanted reward distribution to favor certain pools—for example, using a locker to direct all $CRV rewards to the pool with the highest fees. But if you check Curve today, the highest-fee pool is precisely the one he championed: $MIM…
So the evolution of the Curve ecosystem is fundamentally a “milk distribution” problem—and this will remain a long-term discussion. Only through prolonged development can it evolve toward an optimal form. Currently, DeFi protocols mostly operate under primitive reward models—many follow a flat-share approach.
Thus, debates over Curve’s evolution are healthy. In the long run, everyone may emulate Curve’s DAO model—credit goes to them. We previously invested in izumi, which adopted some of $CRV’s incentive mechanics—I found that meaningful.
I look forward to Curve becoming a “god” not just in liquidity but also in DAO governance and reward allocation.
Rui: In my view, the core reason behind governance battles in Curve lies in the fact that swapping stablecoins offers steady, low-risk yield farming opportunities. The fight is essentially over liquidity in mining pools—low-risk capital seeking stable returns despite potential risks. Governance rights matter, but outside of Curve and a few other DeFi protocols, few have reached the stage where governance control becomes critical. Looking ahead, I believe projects like Aave and Uniswap, which hold most underlying assets, still have room to improve capital efficiency through deeper locking mechanisms.
There were many attempts at interest rate derivatives around Aave, but they weren’t successful because no one used them—they’re too complex. I’m optimistic about projects redistributing lending/borrowing rates and those enabling borrowing against long-tail assets.
As for Uniswap, v3 acts as a cash machine for skilled market makers, but strategies are limited in scale and not designed for mass adoption. An alternative path could involve options-based hedging—transforming LP positions into risk-neutral yield products via crypto-native derivatives. That could work well.
I doubt the base layer assets in DeFi will appreciate another tenfold given current BTC and ETH prices, and leading protocols won’t easily lose dominance. However, reconfiguring value generated from existing assets presents significant opportunities.
Johnson : DeFi moves too fast, with countless variables. Let me approach this from the angle of “change”—some trends seem clear.
1. The veCRV model pioneered by Curve and its ecosystem—including Redacted and bribing protocols based (or not) on OHM.
2. Permissionless lending protocols for long-tail assets, such as Silo Finance, Euler Finance, potentially integrating veCRV lending.
3. Crypto-native GameFi, like MAGIC and Genesis Adventures within the Loot ecosystem. For instance, the MAGIC ecosystem may adopt a ve-model.
4. Exploration of on-chain derivatives. Most current designs (options, futures, IRS) aren’t tailored for DeFi. What we need are primitives purpose-built for DeFi—not simply replicating centralized finance on-chain.
5. Experimentation with DeFi on L2s and building ecosystems to address high gas fees on L1.
Overall, composability defines DeFi. Early protocols must first solve liquidity issues and attract early users before optimizing design and capital efficiency. Though innovation may slow during this phase, gameplay won’t stagnate.
Min: The Curve War has never stopped since its inception—first, a battle among yield platforms like Yearn.finance, Stake DAO, Convex, Frax, and Wonderland, all trying to control CRV to pull liquidity away from competitors. Then, a tug-of-war between Curve and Uniswap over stablecoin trading volume.
With non-stablecoin projects entering Curve—like Tokemak—the liquidity war will intensify to unprecedented levels, drawing both new and established projects into the fray.
As for DeFi’s future, we’ll need innovation to create incremental value—or aggressively increase leverage and capital utilization.
Some emerging directions include: First, “RDeFi” (Regulated DeFi), such as Aave Arc and Compound Treasury, offering institutional-grade DeFi services.
Second, real-world asset tokenization—Aave partnered with Centrifuge to launch a Real World Assets (RWA) market, allowing users to collateralize physical assets for cash loans.
Third, uncollateralized lending—recent examples include Coinbase’s Goldfinch and TrueFi (which may shift models). But ultimately, these rely on B2B credit lines and lack scalability in long-tail markets due to missing credit systems and risk controls in crypto. I’m bullish on future web3 reputation scoring based on wallet addresses—an actual credit system.
Overall, I’m less enthusiastic about DeFi lately—mainly because I lack the brainpower. Fixed-rate mechanics put me to sleep halfway through, like doing calculus.
Benson: Most DeFi protocols currently struggle with liquidity loyalty. Beyond liquidity mining, are there better, more sustainable ways to retain liquidity? This is what DeFi 2.0 aims to solve. Personally, I think Tokemak’s model could shine this year. Tokemak focuses on DAO-to-DAO interaction rather than individual-level博弈.
For example, launching a new reactor in Tokemak requires depositing corresponding tokens into its reserve pool. This process demands DAO-to-DAO coordination—using TOKE to acquire target tokens. It opens possibilities: structured as inter-DAO loans, introducing dedicated lending protocols, or layered with PCV-like mechanisms. Algorithmic stablecoins remain crypto’s unsolved holy grail—from early AMPL, mid-era Basis, to recent Fei, OHM, UST—all rely on narrow game theory frameworks incapable of true price anchoring.
UXD stands out as an interesting algorithmic stablecoin—backed by delta-neutral positions, minting UXD akin to holding spot ETH plus short hedges. It maintains usable liquidity while generating potential funding income.
Simplicity is key. Perhaps the true algorithmic stablecoin doesn’t require overly complex game-theoretic designs. Current algo-stable equilibria are overly optimistic—most collapse under corner cases. When Luna spiraled upward, everyone celebrated—but downward spiral? Likely fatal. UXD’s model deserves attention.
Bowen: 1. As DeFi’s uncrowned king in 2020, Curve achieved $24 billion TVL in stablecoins and fungible token pairs (WBTC/SBTC, ETH/Lido ETH), surpassing most centralized exchanges in FX market depth and tick precision. Today, many OTC desks route stablecoin trades through Curve.
2. Iterative evolution of algorithmic stablecoins—issuing stablecoins resembles the Fed printing money. Every new team wants to replace USDC, USDT, DAI’s role—projects like FXS, MIM, UST, FEI issue multi-chain algo-stables with ~85% asset backing and DeFi yield features. To boost circulation and utility, joining 3crv/algo-stable pools enhances credibility. More algo-stable projects mean ongoing competition for CRV governance power.
3. Composability remains central to DeFi. No single protocol does everything—recombining ecosystems unlocks vast expansion potential.
4. Crypto degens have unique cultural waves—distinct subcultures like Magic on Arbitrum, Hdao on Tezos, Crypto Raiders on Polygon, and AAVEgotchi. Quirky yet organically grassroots-driven, full of bottom-up community spirit.
Sally：Q2: L1 vs L2—Is the L1 landscape settling? Do older chains like Cosmos still have opportunities? Where will future breakthroughs emerge—on L2s or L1s?
Johnson: WAGMI—I believe there’s opportunity, though it may be short-lived unless backed by strong communities and ecosystems.
Capital assesses valuation—when Ecosystem A rises 10x while Ecosystem B hasn’t moved, B appears undervalued. Once capital flows in, explosive growth follows.
L2 opportunities differ slightly from L1s. While L2 ecosystems resemble L1 tactics—launching ecosystem funds, native flagship protocols—the near-to-mid term belongs to Optimistic Rollup-based L2s: Boba, Optimism, Arbitrum, Metis. Only Boba and Metis have issued native tokens to bootstrap their ecosystems; Optimism and Arbitrum haven’t launched theirs yet. I believe L2s can only kickstart ecosystem incentives once they issue tokens. Without token incentives, attracting early adopters is difficult.
Whether L1 or L2—the first users are always degens → second wave: DeFi power users → third wave: mainstream users.
Sally: That’s an interesting point—token incentives make a big difference for user motivation on L2s.
Min: Last year to this year’s biggest investment theme was the scaling war—new L1s vs L2s. The war continues... I believe in a multi-chain future where each chain finds its niche, but bear markets reveal true strength. I favor chains with distinct specializations—gaming, NFTs... Regarding new L1s, two memes stand out: SoLunAvax in 2021, now FOAN rising (Fantom, One, Atom, Near). I focus more on the latter. There’s still massive opportunity on new chains—especially native innovations beyond Ethereum forks, like DEFIKINGDOM.
From another angle, large VCs have incentives to push L1 narratives—the sector ceiling is high enough to absorb substantial liquidity. Pre-IPO financing rounds on major L1s remain active—for instance, a prominent L1 recently sold $1B at a discount.
For L2s, zkEVM is key. Vitalik stated that in the medium-to-long term, ZK-SNARK improvements will let ZK rollups dominate all use cases. I’m watching several zkEVM implementations closely.
A core challenge for both new L1s and L2s is user onboarding. Currently, interacting with L2s is costlier and less seamless than using new L1s. Securing bridge integrations with major exchanges becomes crucial—it reduces user friction significantly.
0xTodd: How should an L1 develop?
Fundraise → subsidize + inflate metrics → raise again using inflated numbers → repeat subsidies and metric inflation → raise again (including public sales) → repeat...
An infinite loop—the chain that loops most wins. Wealthy L1s can hire Curve, Aave, and Uniswap to join, accelerating the cycle—the harder it is to recruit, the greater the boost upon success.
L2s face tougher challenges. Arbitrum and Optimism haven’t issued tokens yet. Without subsidies, growth is slower. Fewer fork projects appear—those chasing quick profits leave. But legitimacy helps—passion-driven projects still emerge, carrying Ethereum builder DNA. I know many innovative teams who chose Arbitrum despite high ETH gas—like Divergence, which we led. Magic marketplace emerged on Arbitrum. L2s with tokens—Metis, Boba—may grow faster.
In short: Both L1 and L2 have chances—but L2s deserve more patience.
Sally: In summary: Be patient—give L2s more time.
Bowen: The L1 race has just begun. Only 4 million addresses use DEXs; OpenSea has ~300k active ones. Polygon’s Sunflower campaign spiked gas to 600 gwei; Arbitrum and Solana suffered outages; Dfinity choked on NFT launches.
Though every L1 is well-funded, not all will survive battlefield tests.
Star ZK teams—Zksync, StarkNet, Aleo, Aztec—haven’t launched yet. I’m excited about architectures separating computation and storage.
On L2s, I like Arbit, GMX, Dopex, Magic, HND—native derivatives, NFT trading, lending. Healthy ecosystem.
Recently revisiting Dfinity’s developer scene—many SocialFi projects, decentralized Reddit/Twitter clones, psychedelicDAOs. Reminds me of ETH’s 2016 community—building tools and infrastructure, highly creative but lacking killer apps.
I agree with 0xTodd—give them more patience. It’s too early to judge outcomes.
Benson: As Johnson said, FOAN (FTM, One, Atom, Near) recently outperformed the market—possibly due to capital rotation into previously underperforming chains. With lower bases, they attract speculative flows. Short-term EV-wise, FOAN offers bigger opportunities than SoLunAvax.
I believe L1 opportunities hinge on zk-rollup development speed. L1s must seize territory before zk matures. zk demands heavy computation and complexity—likely trailing optimistic rollups by ~six months. Seven-day withdrawal periods on OP-rollups severely hurt UX.
Long-term, however, I don’t see L2s as the final solution. Everything depends on ETH 2.0’s progress. L2s fragment DeFi composability—e.g., Aave only on Polygon, Uniswap only on Optimism. You can’t execute a single transaction calling both contracts. Fragmentation weakens DeFi’s appeal.
Beyond protocol fragmentation, liquidity is split. Even top-tier protocols on L2s lag far behind their mainnet counterparts in volume and TVL—liquidity dispersion is severe.
Rui: I’m bullish on Cosmos. Tendermint is currently the most stable and user-friendly one-click chain-launching framework outside EVM—and highly flexible. Chains can choose whether to join the IBC ecosystem. IBC’s bridging works smoothly—fast, accurate, reliable. Cosmos didn’t charge for Tendermint initially, letting projects flourish freely. As more chains join IBC, ATOM’s value accrual will become clearer. Interestingly, no single chain is mandated as the Hub—market forces decide. This openness benefits Cosmos.
Beyond Cosmos, Polkadot and Dfinity show solid tech directions but failed to cultivate suitable ecosystems. They front-ran their own token appreciation, making it hard to build profitable infrastructure later. Still, they might spawn unique ecosystems.
Chains like AVAX, MATIC, BNB, and newer L1s started by forking Ethereum’s ecosystem, gradually finding their niches. BNB succeeded by targeting gaming and external traffic. AVAX and MATIC polarized—one side hosts cheaper gas alternatives of top Ethereum DeFi; the other hosts highly profitable native projects. But both hit ceilings, and newer chains steal users and attention. Finding a direction is vital for these L1s.
For general-purpose L2s, early development follows similar polarization: migrating quality protocols/developers via shared security; attracting profit-hungry users through native token pumps—once tokens launch. After gaining users, nurture native protocols. These L2s inherit Ethereum’s strong legitimacy and dev base—expect innovative native protocols.
Honestly, L1 applications and infrastructures are too homogeneous. Rather than betting on L1 giants, I prefer functional chains like AR, Mina—that serve other L1s.
Sally: Q3: Over the past two weeks, Chinese-speaking NFTs—including Jay Chou’s Pantabear, the unexpectedly popular Rivermen, and veteran IP Cold Bunny X Rabbits about to launch—have drawn widespread attention. Some say Chinese NFTs are making a comeback. How far are we from seeing a homegrown “national pride” NFT? At what stage do you think we stand in this historical momentum?
Min: Let me throw out some ideas. Ask if I support domestic NFTs? Of course I do—Chinese culture is supreme.
Expanding: I believe Tokens and NFTs will diverge into separate paths. I’ve long been bullish on the “crypto streetwear” narrative (even though I wear Anta King). I even think the next Supreme will debut digitally before extending into physical reality.
To me, traditional finance, crypto—even religion—are Ponzi schemes. Without inflows or amid mass redemptions, they collapse. The question is how to sustain the Ponzi. National pension systems force lockups via state power. But more sophisticated methods use culture—the storytelling ability that made humans Earth’s dominant species—making people willingly lock up.
Diamonds—just carbon—represent one of humanity’s greatest marketing feats. By telling the story “A diamond is forever,” linking diamonds to love, they became a physical NFT (3,3): buy, hodl & stake (wear daily)...
Therefore, powerful NFTs carry cultural weight—whether rooted in atomic-world icons (like Jay Chou’s bear) or crypto-native origins (like PUNK)—because people treat them as “consumables” to permanently (3,3) hold.
OxTodd: Agreed—I’ll take the baton. Discussing this in a Chinese channel feels timely. Chinese culture rules—+1.
I feel Chinese people should engage with their own NFTs—the cultural gap is real. Honestly, I often don’t get Western artists’ work.
Also, I sense Taiwan currently leads in Chinese-language NFT culture—@Benson can elaborate later haha. Mainland China faces regulatory constraints—e.g., digital collectibles require T+180 holding before resale, restricting secondary markets. These hinder NFT development locally.反而, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, or overseas Chinese creators may produce fascinating works. Highly anticipated.
Johnson: I think one needs to master the NFT playbook. Web3 is a global movement—borderless. Once you find product-market fit and unique gameplay, broad attention naturally follows. I believe every region and culture will birth its own NFT culture, reshaping global perceptions.
Sally: Interestingly, many of our guests today are seasoned crypto collectors. From a user/industry insider perspective—what are your views?
@Benson: I know figures like Woody in Taiwan follow NFTs closely—many in the community were early supporters of blue-chip NFTs like BAYC/MAYC. Benson, what’s your take?
Benson: Pantabear once ranked #1 on OpenSea—surpassing Justin Bieber’s little bear. That shows the massive potential of Chinese NFTs. I didn’t buy—watching you profit makes me tearful, truly.
Benson: Following Tod’s point, Taiwan is indeed NFT-crazy right now—communities like Fomo Dog (similar to Western CyberKongs), Demi’s counterculture scene, even a local fried chicken shop issuing NFTs.
I attended a BAYC meetup—many attendees were unfamiliar to me, mostly outsiders to traditional crypto circles. This suggests NFTs’ narrative and cultural inclusivity may exceed conventional crypto. You can also see this in differing bull market cycles between NFTs and crypto.
Recently, Taiwanese artist Chen Lingjiu launched YoloCat—distributing 9% of his personal income to NFT holders. A novel model—fans transform from content consumers into artist investors. I consider this deeply Web3.
Because I love you, I buy your NFT. Because I invest in you, I promote your work. Because I promote it, more people love you. This positive feedback loop creates a superfan flywheel.
Rui: I don’t think Chinese speakers are actually behind in NFTs. Many own APE, and several viral anonymous projects are led by Chinese teams. It’s just that communication happens in English (the lingua franca), and after DeFi exposure, many assume foreign projects are superior.
Regardless of language, finding a core narrative and target buyers is crucial. Teams must continuously build expectations—show users they’re executing. NFTs generally have poor liquidity; as long as holders (3,3), worst case they can’t sell—but prices won’t crash. APE exemplifies this—extremely strong community cohesion, almost cult-like. New expectations constantly emerge—bear-resistant, bull-market gains. Among Chinese NFT teams, I haven’t seen comparable operational skill or crypto-native understanding.
Culture-driven NFTs are more intriguing—often backed by off-chain resources, establishing baseline value expectations. Regional differences shape distinct player bases. People unfamiliar with the culture experience FOMO when prices surge, driving rapid pumps. But once FOMO fades, sufficient community education and intrinsic value are needed to sustain prices. Take Jay Chou’s NFT—celebrity-backed, with clear pricing logic.
Buying at 0.4 ETH, people thought: even if nothing happens, his fanbase ensures demand—concert seats cost similar. Or later, project teams add real-world utilities—fans will support. But hardcore fans’ purchasing power has limits. As prices rise, expectation gaps close—teams must deliver new roadmaps and utility promises to prep for the next pump.
Bowen: Domestic NFTs resemble fashion brands/luxury goods—regional in nature. Diamonds are a global Ponzi; jade is Southeast Asia’s Ponzi. People crave status symbols—to show trendiness, coolness, taste. Thus, new brands keep emerging, representing new demographics.
Celebrity endorsements are highly effective—like Edison Chen’s Clot. I believe every influencer will soon have their own music NFT, streetwear NFT, profile NFT. In NYC, I met Chainsmokers—he invested in an NFT record label letting top bidders co-create mixes. That fan economy is cool and adds real utility.
Sally: Q4: Web3 narratives seem back in public spotlight—whether early VC-driven stories or recent tech leaders battling top VCs. Can you share your views on Web3 and favorite projects?
Min: Since I’ve been grinding content creation (please support us!), I’ve focused heavily on creator economies.
The logic: Web2 wasn’t built to move money but information. Its revenue model relies on attention economics around free products—where attention and traffic accumulate on platforms, not creators. Hence platforms grow huge while creators get “exploited.”
Web3 transforms attention economies into ownership economies. Creators genuinely own their content as assets, connect directly with users, and turn traditional support (tipping & subscriptions) into investment—scaling up, thriving, sharing success.
Example: This is exactly happening. Thanks to Benson. Currently, OpenSea leads creator economies—but it’s Web2.5. Sexier platforms will emerge. Huge space. Specific projects? Still researching—feel free to recommend!
Johnson: Briefly: Web3.0 encompasses much.
1. Social tokens and social fi—how to integrate personal tokens organically into DeFi; how to make NFT pfps sustainable; mobile wallets bridging crypto-native experiences.
2. Metaverse development and gameplay—integrating Web3 middleware: property leasing, ad services, virtual fashion, etc.
3. Web3-native applications and culturally unique tools—emergence and integration of (3,3), ape, rekt, meme cultures across ecosystems.
OxTodd: Predicting favored sectors is toughest. My view: What defines revolution? Bloodshed and conflict. If Web3 claims to be revolutionary, its competition must reach life-or-death intensity to qualify.
Today, many apps call themselves Web3 just for supporting MetaMask logins or displaying NFTs—feels like “Why not eat meat porridge?” These micro-innovations hardly resemble revolution.
Last month I wrote an article arguing Web3 should genuinely focus on ordinary people. Enjoying this chat—everyone here is knowledgeable. But that doesn’t reflect average people or professionals in other fields. They lack our accumulated knowledge and ease with current Web3 tools.
People from all walks of life are busy—not immersed like us. Their Web3 needs must solve problems Web2 can’t—only then meet minimum standards. Can’t just flaunt niche, elitist features.
Here’s a benchmark—40% of China’s population lives in rural towns. I’ll only believe Web3 can change the world when at least one-third of them can use it smoothly—then it can fulfill its mission.
Rui: First, not everyone suits Web3. Claiming data ownership sounds easy—but execution is hard. Without search and recommendation algorithms, many would struggle daily. When ChainNews vanished, quality crypto content became hard to find—you must curate your own feed. Living in WeChat’s traffic matrix costs extra but offers comfort. Thus, Web3 will remain niche for a long time—requires massive quality content and profit incentives to draw broader participation.
Second, I believe no one will successfully build Web3 versions of Twitter or Facebook. Web3 UX inherently lags behind Web2. Blockchains allocate利益 among participants under low-trust conditions—but only valuable things merit on-chain recording. Does posting daily gm/gn add value even if on-chain? Also, Web2 traffic matrices rely on data; Web3 returns data to individuals—making traffic matrices impossible. Users lose chat history moving from WeChat to Telegram—a huge migration cost. But if data lived on-chain, migration would be nearly frictionless. Thus, Web3 should modularize valuable data—product forms being composable modules.
Therefore, investing in Web3 means backing core modules—identity, storage, on-chain data querying/parsing. Foundational investments—valuable regardless of Web3’s direction.
Bowen: Web1: What you see is what you get (all readable, playable, searchable emails)
Web2: What you're recommended is what you get (everything you buy, play, eat—curated by corporations or influential friends/KOLs onto shelves or feeds)
Web3: What you build is what you get (contributors gain ownership and rewards by building communities and following new rules)
Web3’s hallmark: MetaMask wallet login, all transactions recorded on smart contract layers, anyone can view your on-chain activity. Current Web3 might be like 2000—the internet era—mostly showing NFT profile pages. But I’m bullish on Creator Economy, DID, Social Graph, Onchain Credential use cases and composability.
For example, Project Galaxy and CyberConnect—great projects by our friends.
Benson: Web3’s logic is politically correct—a concept of returning power to people, letting users partially own networks/organizations. This breaks relational boundaries. Like earlier mentioned—Chen Lingjiu’s YoloCat turns fans into investors.
Traditional creators—artists, writers, cartoonists—face heavy cuts from agents/platforms. Traffic concentrates with intermediaries. Beyond unfair revenue splits, some middlemen profit not from products but ad attention—causing talented creators pain. They resort to sensational works to grab eyeballs—like journalists writing tabloids not out of choice, but because platforms chase clicks to sell ads.
But Web3 disrupts this. A creator doesn’t need 100k casual fans—just 1k true-paying superfans to survive. If a creator digitizes their work and shares profits via DAO fundraising or NFTs, using smart contract cash flow tools like Superfluid for automatic payouts, that’s powerful Web3. Fans turned investors exhibit stronger loyalty and evangelism than regular followers.
I believe creator-economy-derived Web3 projects could become a massive sector.
TechFlow is a community-driven deep content platform committed to delivering valuable information and thoughtful insights.
Community:
WeChat Official Account: TechFlow
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowPost
Twitter: TechFlowPost
Join WeChat group: Add assistant WeChat TechFlow01
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
