2026-01-09 16:26:19

TON ecosystem researchers recently shared an interesting perspective: what is the true driving force behind cryptocurrency growth?

They believe that practicality is fundamental, and this cannot be bypassed. Secondly, social viral growth and word-of-mouth spread are also crucial—when a certain application suddenly becomes popular, it is often because users are willing to actively share. But what are the prerequisites for these two? It’s to not rely solely on speculation. Projects that depend purely on capital games tend to have very short lifespans.

Conversely, those long-lasting Web3 applications with strong user stickiness usually find a balance in these three dimensions: genuinely solving problems, organic user dissemination, and a healthy economic model. This is the sustainable growth logic.

TON0,97%

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
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GateUser-a5fa8bd0

· 01-12 08:26

Basically, don't mess around with Ponzi schemes; it's a dead end. Practicality + Virality + Good Model—this iron triangle requires all three. It's not some new theory; it's just returning to the fundamentals. The researchers at TON are quite clear-headed.

View OriginalReply0

ProbablyNothing

· 01-11 06:19

It sounds good, but in reality, nine out of ten projects die at the "solving what problem" stage. It's just theoretical talk; let's wait until there are truly sticky applications. I don't know if this theory is correct, but it definitely can't revive speculative projects.

View OriginalReply0

MetaNomad

· 01-09 16:56

You're right, but the reality is that most projects die at the "lack of real users" step. These three conditions sound simple, but very few actually achieve them. Without a user base, even the best economic model is useless... Speculative projects indeed don't last long, but don't be too idealistic either. It seems that some recent applications of TON are trying to find this balance, but time will tell. Practicality is easy to talk about, but really doing it is quite difficult. I agree with the importance of a healthy model, but unfortunately most are still driven by financial pressure. This logic is correct; 99% of project teams want to take shortcuts... Applications with strong stickiness do share this common trait, but whether they can be replicated is hard to say. Projects with a short lifecycle either have no users or have gameplay that is too monotonous. The three-dimensional balance sounds perfect, but in practice, one part always tends to collapse.

View OriginalReply0

PortfolioAlert

· 01-09 16:56

That's right, but in reality, how many projects are still relying on pump-and-dump schemes and air coins to survive? Practicality is indeed the foundation, but the problem is that most are just empty promises. Projects that balance these three dimensions are truly rare and worth paying attention to. Another overhyped theory, forgotten by next month. Projects with real vitality have already been quietly accumulating users. The bubble of speculation bursts faster than new investors can enter. It sounds impressive, but in reality, success still depends on luck and timing. Healthy economic models? Let's start with not rugging first... This set of theories looks good on paper, but only the true heroes are those who can survive the bear market.

View OriginalReply0

CrossChainMessenger

· 01-09 16:55

That's a fair point, but honestly, very few projects manage to balance these three aspects effectively. It sounds right, but the problem is that most get stuck on "practicality." Both sustainability and long-term vision—who do I think wins? Probably whoever raises more funds. Healthy economic model? Uh, that term is even rarer than integrity in the crypto world. But TON is actually doing some interesting things, definitely better than those stories built solely on fundraising. I agree with the idea of user-driven dissemination, but only if the product is truly good—that's the hardest part. So, the core is still product strength; everything else is superficial. It sounds logical, but by this standard, hardly any projects would qualify, right?

View OriginalReply0

ForumMiningMaster

· 01-09 16:47

That's right, but this theory still sounds a bit idealistic. Last year, how many projects claimed to "solve problems," only to end up in a mess? The key is who defines what truly solving problems means. I think most of it is just self-indulgence. I agree with the practicality part, but the reality is that speculation and practicality are often inseparable. The idea of a healthy economic model is the funniest. Look at how many projects still dare to claim their economic models are healthy. However, the TON ecosystem is indeed doing something different, at least not so superficial. Social fission is the real core, everything else is just虚的.

View OriginalReply0

SandwichTrader

· 01-09 16:37

You're right. Compared to projects that rely solely on hype, those with real vitality still need to solve practical problems. It's the same old "user stickiness" theory; it's easy to talk about but truly implementing it is a nightmare, brother. TON does have some potential, but the ecosystem is still far from the time to speak. They talk about practicality and economic models every day, but in the end, it's all about who can market themselves better. These three dimensions sound good, but unfortunately, most projects haven't figured out any of them. The number of applications that can truly survive is pitiful; most are still in countdown to death. Honestly, you still need genuine users; otherwise, it's all just castles in the air. What's the use of a good economic model? The key is whether anyone is actually using it. This kind of analysis can be heard every cycle, but in the end, few truly survive.

View OriginalReply0

Ser_This_Is_A_Casino

· 01-09 16:34

That's right, but to be honest, only a few projects truly achieve these three points. Most are just a mess. Talking on paper is easy; real implementation is scarce. This set of theories has no flaws; the key is execution. Unfortunately, most die here. Practicality? Ha, just listen. Ninety percent of projects haven't even considered this. Here we go again with stories. The crypto world often does this. No matter how good it sounds, in the end, it's just the bottom feeder taking the hit. Healthy economic model? The most "healthy" one I've seen is just dumping. Forget it, stop making excuses for yourself. You're just throwing a tantrum. There's a truth: social fission is indeed easy to overlook, but it only lasts for about a hundred or so days of hype. Exactly, exactly. Practicality is king; everything else is just clouds. People who say these things usually don't have much to show for their own projects. In summary, one word: difficult.

View OriginalReply0

All-InQueen

· 01-09 16:28

No problem with that, projects that are purely hype will die sooner or later. --- It's the same old practicality, but how many projects have actually achieved it in reality? --- Social viral growth is indeed powerful; just look at Doge back in the day. --- Health economic models? Uh... I haven't seen many in this circle. --- That last sentence feels like it's saying, you need real stuff to survive longer. --- So basically, it's still about solving real problems; otherwise, even if it’s popular, it’s just a flash in the pan. --- It's a bit idealistic to say, but the general direction is correct. --- When comparing these three dimensions, most projects are in a crippled state. --- Practicality is the hardest; just creating hype is much easier.

View OriginalReply0