How Can Crypto Truly Prosper?

Monad has recently received substantial attention. I did not track carefully whether the discussion was about its testnet or mainnet. The important point is the surrounding narrative. Monad and its KOLs present it as a next-generation blockchain architecture that can challenge Ethereum and outperform Solana.

The core mechanism is described as pre-execution. The claim is that pre-execution improves execution performance, reduces the bottleneck of blockchain execution, increases throughput, lowers latency, and pushes gas fees toward zero. This is a familiar package: higher TPS, lower latency, and lower fees. It is the standard performance narrative for a new public chain.

I am not evaluating here whether Monad’s technical claims are valid. The more interesting observation is the marketing strategy. The strategy is to repeatedly FUD Ethereum.

Today, the narrative is that Monad has pre-execution, so the EVM is slow, Layer 2 development is fragmented, ZK-EVMs are always delayed, and Ethereum is no longer suitable as the main execution platform. Tomorrow, another chain may advertise latency below $1\,\mathrm{s}$, and the same speakers will shift to saying that Ethereum’s roughly $12\,\mathrm{s}$ block interval is unacceptable.

This strategy works because Ethereum has accumulated resentment. ETH has failed to clearly break its previous high for a long time. Many long-term spot holders have waited for years. False breakouts make the frustration worse. At the same time, many users remember periods of very high gas fees. For them, Ethereum is not only an asset that underperformed. It is also a system that once made ordinary transactions expensive.

A KOL can convert this frustration into trust. If the KOL attacks Ethereum, the audience may not see it as “criticizing one asset to promote another.” They may see it as finally saying what they already feel. The criticism then becomes a distribution channel for the new project.

This mechanism is understandable within crypto, but it is harmful to blockchain technology. Crypto and blockchain follow different logics. Most retail crypto users do not actually evaluate whether the new mechanism is technically sound. They temporarily believe that the new chain may become the next major public chain. This belief increases attention, attracts liquidity, and benefits early holders, whales, and market makers. When the token price later falls, many of the same users will sell. The technical narrative will not protect them.

The broader problem is that attention and capital are repeatedly fragmented. Each new public chain or “innovation” creates a few concepts and a few token pumps. But the industry still has not produced many applications that cross into mainstream use. Inside crypto, there have been moments of strong participation, such as NFT or ape-related cycles. Outside crypto, most Web2 users still do not care.

This raises a basic question. If crypto has existed for more than a decade, why has it remained so internal? Why does it so often recycle attention within the same user base? Why does every cycle turn new participants into exit liquidity for earlier participants?

The answer is not only technical. The market structure is fragile. Liquidity is thin, information is opaque, and attention moves quickly. When capital shifts from one narrative to another, the previous narrative can collapse. New users enter because prices are down, because they believe they are early, or because they think they can outsmart the previous group. Many of them become the next source of exit liquidity.

In such an environment, the conservative strategy is to treat crypto like a sector of technology equities. BTC is the primary blue-chip asset. ETH is the secondary blue-chip asset. Most other tokens are speculative positions with much higher narrative risk.

CZ often repeats the slogan “build.” The slogan is not wrong, but it is not enough. Holding assets may make an individual profitable. It does not necessarily help blockchain as a technology. If the final outcome is that a tiny fraction of users say “thank you, crypto” while most users leave believing that blockchain itself is a scam, then the technology loses even if some insiders profit.

The industry therefore needs better public communication. Most crypto content is about coins. This is a problem. KOLs are the main interface between the industry and new users, so they should explain what blockchain is, what it can do, and what risks remain. They should help prepare the public for a more mature regulatory environment. Instead, many of them spread narratives that make the industry less credible.

Regulatory relaxation is difficult under this culture. A market built on cyclical hype and harvesting is hard to defend from the outside. The people who benefit from the cycle may also prefer that the cycle continues. This creates a deadlock.

I remain optimistic about blockchain technology. I am much less optimistic about the short-term future of crypto as a market.