It is no secret that the success of many NFT projects, regardless of chain, is largely dependent on the strength of its community. Time and time again, weak projects with horrendously poor fundamentals are somehow elevated to “blue chip status” purely through the backing of their strong communities. Conversely, and somewhat unfairly, projects with strong fundamentals but poor communities are, more often than not, left in the dust.
It, therefore, stands to reason that building a strong community is the most important thing that teams have to get right if they are to stand a chance in the ruthless world of Web3.
Throughout the course of NFT history, a variety of methods have been tried by project leaders to level up their respective communities. Hosting games, hosting Twitter spaces, collaborating with other projects, increasing hype, rewarding active community members — the list goes on. Indeed, many projects simply copy the tactics of other projects, but they don’t all succeed to the same degree.
So what is it? What’s the answer to making a community strong? The answer is, of course, not as straightforward as many hope. I’m not sure I even fully know the best way to go about building a strong community myself — if a “best way” even exists. There are, however, some considerations that I’d like to share.
Many factors affect the strength of a community.
Category
First and foremost, the type of community that a project has is selectively moulded, in a way, by the project’s category. For instance, projects that are built on pure hype attract passionate individuals that may scream about it from the hilltops for a short but intense period — but when the hype dies down, those individuals start to leave too. A project built on smoking cannabis will attract cannabis smokers or, at the very least, people who have faith in the profitability of the cannabis industry. A project like Blocksmith Labs will attract people who are interested in building and utility in Web3. Unless project leaders change their projects’ foundational categories entirely, this is something they can do very little about.
Leadership
Second, the behaviour of leadership. How cohesive and friendly a community is depends very much on the behaviour of the project’s leadership. I know I’ve mentioned earlier that some projects are carried by their community members, but those projects are simply tremendously lucky. If a project’s leadership behaves badly, rarely shows up to interact with the community, does not care to give updates on what they are doing behind the scenes (if anything at all), and engages often in Twitter trolling, then the community will be discouraged and eventually fall apart.
Luck
Third, luck. As alluded to earlier. Some projects are just lucky enough to have a good community. Specifically, this luck usually centres around the inclusion of a handful of exceptional and passionate community members. These unique individuals can resurrect an entire community from the dead — and in the most extreme scenario, even “derug” a project should the original founders choose to rug it. Every project needs gems like these, but they are a truly rare breed indeed.
Conclusion
The strength of a community is ultimately determined by multiple interlinked factors such as category, leadership, and luck. It is therefore crucial to gain a deep understanding of these factors in specific relation to your own community so that you can cater effectively to it and maximise its potential.
How will you choose to build your community?
Written by: Jpegtologist
