2026-01-10 06:50:31

Projects on BSC that are about to explode often determine the rhythm of the entire ecosystem moving forward.

Looking at the two current strategies in the market, it becomes clear:

One is the "legacy" style—adhering to traditional posting rhythms, maintaining a stable brand tone, operating like some already mature project teams. These projects have clear goals, straightforward strategies, and community expectations remain stable.

The other is to loosen community freedom—encouraging participants to create spontaneously, full of improvisation and vitality. Under this model, community energy is easier to ignite, content becomes more diverse, and popularity can rise more easily.

The question is: What does the BSC ecosystem need more right now? Which type of project launch can truly drive the next wave of growth for the entire ecosystem?

This choice, frankly, is a trade-off between stability and vitality. The future direction of BSC largely depends on how these new projects choose— their operational strategies will become benchmarks for others to follow.

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.

19 Likes

Reward
19
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SybilAttackVictim

· 8h ago

Honestly, I'm tired of both of these approaches now. The key issue isn't even the operational strategy. Projects that can truly succeed don't need to worry about these things; they just need to make profit sharing transparent. What BSC needs most right now isn't vitality, but for everyone to stop cutting.

View OriginalReply0

RealYieldWizard

· 01-10 07:20

Honestly, both of these strategies have failed on BSC before... Stable ones still cut the grass, and energetic ones can quickly cool down. Stability can actually lead to aesthetic fatigue, while loosening freedom can easily cause chaos. The key is whether the team is truly sincere. What the ecosystem needs is not choosing one or the other, but stop blindly copying a single approach. The ones truly setting the pace on BSC are actually those who don’t follow conventional rules. In my opinion, instead of fussing over these two, it’s better to see which project dares to genuinely share profits with the community.

View OriginalReply0

GweiWatcher

· 01-10 07:20

Honestly, right now on BSC, everyone is doing their own thing. Which strategy is really popular depends on whether a dark horse project can emerge. The stable camp is too competitive, while the free camp is prone to setbacks... But if you don't dare to bet on new projects, there's no chance. Vitality attracts attention, but in the end, who stays depends on technology and funding. Can community self-entertainment be sustained? It seems that in the end, it still comes down to fundamentals. In my opinion, mixing both approaches is more interesting, as it combines rhythm with flexibility. The rhythm of the ecosystem is actually determined by the market, not the project team.

View OriginalReply0

TokenomicsShaman

· 01-10 07:17

Honestly, the community's freedom is more popular now. Stability is useless if the hype can't build up, it's a dead end. That old-school way of operation... we're almost tired of seeing it, really. What the BSC ecosystem needs is hustle, creativity, and a bunch of people wildly setting the pace behind the scenes. Projects that still stick to the old routine of just posting tweets will be eliminated sooner or later. New projects should directly empower the community and let everyone have fun—that's the way to go, right?

View OriginalReply0

LiquiditySurfer

· 01-10 07:15

Honestly, I've seen both approaches fail before. The key is execution. Trends can rise easily and fall just as quickly. Stable projects don't necessarily last long. Wait, are there any projects on BSC that can truly "explode" right now? High flexibility doesn't equal an active community. How to attract low-quality participants?

View OriginalReply0