社區主導的代幣發行的興起：挑戰傳統的VC主導模式

社區主導的代幣發行再次上升，這種趨勢挑戰了由機構投資者主導的傳統模式。為了分析這一變化，我們將探討最近的趨勢，包括超流動和迴聲的案例，同時評估不同令牌分佈方法的社區情緒和市場表現。

A new wave of community-led token issuance is sweeping the crypto industry, challenging the traditional model dominated by venture capital (VC) and other institutional investors.

由社區主導的代幣發行浪潮正在席捲加密貨幣行業，挑戰了由風險投資（VC）和其他機構投資者主導的傳統模式。

In recent months, several key factors have contributed to this resurgence of community-driven fundraising.

最近幾個月，幾個關鍵因素促成了社區驅動籌款活動的複興。

First, market sentiment has gradually shifted toward a preference for community-led issuance models, largely influenced by the successful performance of Hyperliquid’s tokens after distribution.

首先，市場情緒逐漸轉向偏愛社區主導的發行模型，這在很大程度上受到了分發後超流動令的成功性能的影響。

This positive sentiment stems from the observation that tokens allocated to the community have generally performed better post-issuance compared to those allocated to VCs and other large investors.

這種積極的情緒源於與分配給VCS和其他大型投資者相比，分配給社區的代幣通常表現更好。

In the past, tokens allocated to VCs often performed poorly after issuance due to a combination of factors, including low circulation, uneven token distribution, and strict token unlocking schedules, which led to continuous price declines over time.

過去，分配給VCS的令牌在發行後經常表現不佳，這是由於多種因素的組合，包括低流通，不均勻的令牌分佈和嚴格的令牌解鎖計劃，這會隨著時間的推移持續下降。

In contrast, tokens allocated to the community have typically encountered less selling pressure and have even appreciated in value post-issuance.

相比之下，分配給社區的代幣通常遇到的銷售壓力較小，甚至在發行後的價值上都讚賞。

This disparity in performance has created a growing preference among users for projects that allocate a larger portion of their tokens to the community.

性能差異使用戶越來越偏好，這些項目將其代幣的大部分代幣分配給社區。

Second, as more new tokens enter the market, projects need to find ways to stand out from the competition. Community participation is becoming a key differentiator in this regard.

其次，隨著越來越多的新代幣進入市場，項目需要找到在競爭中脫穎而出的方法。在這方面，社區參與成為關鍵的區別。

The “fair launch model,” which involves launching a token without any pre-allocation or fundraising, has returned to people’s attention as a way to achieve fairer token distribution.

“公平發射模型”涉及在沒有任何前分配或籌款的情況下啟動令牌，它重新引起人們的注意，以實現更公平的令牌分配。

This model has gained popularity among retail investors, who are now able to participate in investment projects that were previously limited to institutional investors.

該模式已經在散戶投資者中廣受歡迎，他們現在能夠參與以前僅限於機構投資者的投資項目。

In some cases, the community-led model even allows retail investors to acquire tokens at a better price than traditional investors.

在某些情況下，社區主導的模式甚至允許散戶投資者以比傳統投資者更好的價格購買代幣。

However, this trend also presents new challenges, particularly for project teams that must maintain fairness in token distribution while securing the necessary funding.

但是，這種趨勢也提出了新的挑戰，特別是對於必須在確保必要資金的同時保持代幣分配中公平性的項目團隊。

While many founders value democratic participation in their communities, they often face a more practical problem: how to raise enough money to complete product development.

儘管許多創始人重視民主黨在社區中的參與，但他們經常面臨一個更實用的問題：如何籌集足夠的資金來完成產品開發。

The dilemma arises because projects that allocate the majority of their tokens to VCs and other institutional investors often face skepticism from users, who may prefer projects that allocate a larger portion of tokens to the community.

出現困境是因為將大部分令牌分配給VCS和其他機構投資者經常面臨用戶的持懷疑態度的項目，這些項目可能更喜歡將大部分代幣分配給社區的項目。

Even so, the community-led model still has unique advantages.

即便如此，社區主導的模型仍然具有獨特的優勢。

If the token distribution structure is overly dependent on institutional investors, it will often lead to a mismatch between short-term price fluctuations and the long-term strategic goals of the project.

如果令牌分配結構過於依賴機構投資者，則通常會導致短期價格波動與項目的長期戰略目標之間的不匹配。

This problem is usually manifested through a strict token unlocking mechanism, which further affects the healthy development of token economics.

通常通過嚴格的令牌解鎖機制來表現此問題，這進一步影響了令牌經濟學的健康發展。

In addition, excessive control by institutional investors will also weaken the voice of retail investors in project governance and long-term development.

此外，機構投資者的過度控制也將削弱散戶投資者在項目治理和長期發展方面的聲音。

This lack of participation may lead to a decline in community activity and ultimately a loss of investor interest and attention.

缺乏參與可能會導致社區活動的下降，並最終導致投資者的興趣和關注。

Common pain points

常見的疼痛點

Community Preferences: What do users care about most?

社區偏好：用戶最關心什麼？

Discussions on social media and the rise of platforms like Echo show growing frustration among cryptocurrency users about the special treatment given to VCs and institutional investors.

關於社交媒體的討論以及Echo等平台的興起表明，加密貨幣使用者對VCS和機構投資者的特殊待遇越來越沮喪。

There is a growing community call for a fairer investment environment.

社區越來越多地呼籲建立更公平的投資環境。

Main expectations of the communityStructural considerations

社區結構考慮的主要期望

Changing trends: impact on the market

變化趨勢：對市場的影響

As more projects adopt a community-centric strategy, some key trends emerge:

隨著越來越多的項目採用以社區為中心的戰略，一些關鍵趨勢出現了：

Innovative token issuance mechanism

創新的令牌發行機制

Main challenges faced by the project

該項目面臨的主要挑戰

Case Study: Hyperliquid’s VC-free Model

案例研究：超流動的無VC模型

The successful performance of Hyperliquid’s tokens after distribution provides a reference for rejecting traditional venture capital financing.

分銷後超流動的代幣的成功性能為拒絕傳統風險投資融資提供了參考。

However, Hyperliquid’s user base has some unique characteristics that make it different from other projects attempting similar community-driven approaches, and therefore may not be suitable as a general reference case:

但是，Hyperliquid的用戶群具有一些獨特的特徵，使其與嘗試類似社區驅動方法的其他項目不同，因此可能不適合作為一般參考案例：

While Hyperliquid’s approach has been remarkably successful, other projects need to realize that their communities may differ greatly from Hyperliquid’s.

儘管Hyperliquid的方法非常成功，但其他項目需要意識到其社區可能與超級流動性有很大差異。

A strategy that works for a platform with many wealthy and experienced traders may not work for a project targeting the average retail user.

適用於許多富有且經驗豐富的交易者平台的策略可能對針對普通零售用戶的項目不起作用。

This also raises a question worth pondering: Is community fundraising really more sustainable, or does it simply transfer selling pressure from venture capital to retail investors who are more eager for quick returns?

這也提出了一個值得思考的問題：社區籌款是真的更可持續，還是只是將銷售壓力從風險投資轉移到更渴望快速回報的零售投資者？

Venture capital usually adopts a well-thought-out exit strategy, while retail investors in community fundraising lack the ability to invest long-term due to limited funds, which may lead to more unstable markets and emotional fluctuations.

風險投資通常採用經過深思熟慮的退出策略，而社區籌款活動的散戶投資者由於資金有限而無法進行長期投資的能力，這可能會導致更不穩定的市場和情感上的波動。

Additionally, it’s worth noting that despite Hyperliquid distributing over 31% of their tokens, they have remained focused on building a quality product that users will actually want to use.

此外，值得注意的是，儘管超過31％的令牌分發了超過31％的令牌，但他們仍然專注於構建用戶實際想要使用的優質產品。

This provides an important revelation to other projects: the community itself cannot ensure the success of a project, and the project must be built on a solid foundation, such as providing an excellent product experience.

這為其他項目提供了重要的啟示：社區本身無法確保項目的成功，並且該項目必須建立在堅實的基礎上，例如提供出色的產品體驗。

Key differences between the methods

方法之間的關鍵差異

Although the crypto community has enthusiastically embraced the shift from a venture capital-led fundraising model to a community-driven model, one fact that cannot be ignored is that the short-term profit-seeking tendency in human nature has not changed.

儘管加密社區熱情地接受了從風險投資的籌款模式到社區驅動的模式的轉變，但不能忽視的一個事實是，人性的短期尋求利潤趨勢並沒有改變。

The key differences between these allocation methods are as follows

這些分配方法之間的關鍵差異如下