Written by: Fourteen君
This is a small essay about the Hong Kong Web3 Carnival.
It might sound a bit harsh, but I want to talk about past events and why they were disproven.
1. Is the Hong Kong Web3 Carnival Cold?
Cold, which is the first impression of many. The previous conference was packed with people, crowding forward, while this time it was almost entirely familiar project teams, with the VIP room empty and few people coming to see the exhibition. Where would liquidity and creativity come from? But more people were wearing suits, and the underlying logic of the industry seemed to be reconstructing.
From the source of the cold feeling, some say the venue layout was strange, appearing empty, while others say Wanxiang was insufficiently prepared, guests were difficult to invite, project teams were scarce, and even the price of speaking on stage had returned to calm, with some voices seeming more like proving "I'm still alive, not dead".
In my view, the relationship between East and West remains a case of a warm face meeting a cold back.
Significantly fewer Western faces, after three years, in the Web3 field (and perhaps many other fields).
Even if Vitalik was present on-site, beyond fan photo opportunities, the remaining interactions were mainly one-sided criticisms from some bald guys who have ruined the industry.
Deeply rooted are cultural and pursuit differences.
Those who treat Web3 technological achievements as a casino, relying on screenshots of hitting three bananas in each cycle, are influencing the overall direction, building more slot machines, luring more gamblers, and siphoning off builders' user acquisition results.
Western major public chains collectively view Eastern needs as merely users, not partners.
Is this because others don't want to play together, or is there a problem on our side?
Or is it that everyone's pursuits were never the same to begin with, yet still expecting to play together?
2. Is RWA Correct?
In every keynote speech, over half the slides are deceptive. When will the content match the titles?
RWA is this year's mainstream narrative, but how different is its underlying logic from NFTs three years ago, inscriptions two years ago, or MEME from a year ago?
Looking carefully at each cycle's underlying foundation, you'll find that once something enters a macro perspective, it ultimately becomes correct and thus justified.
RWA is just another shell topic from a new macro perspective.
In fact, grand narratives often infinitely ignore the rights of thousands of individuals, seemingly a "everything is a sacrificial dog" feeling, sometimes not even a dog, just numbers.
Certainly, capturing a mainstream narrative can lead to takeoff. Phantom captured SOL and MEME airdrops, Bitget captured the TG ecosystem, pursuing multi-chain + annual narrative, achieving significant annual growth.
But in this industry, growth has never been difficult; retention is challenging (with resources and momentum, growth can have a more flywheel effect compared to traditional internet).
Things done on-chain remain limited and basically not daily necessities. After the hundreds of wallet battles, even last year's hottest Unisat is no longer frequently opened, nor needs to be opened, adding only melancholy.
RWA institutions are encountering the PPT fraud of the previous narrative's Web2 elite halo - people who talk about "empowering ecology" without even having used a wallet.
Interestingly, BTC's events don't care about narrative, which is hopeful, as those chasing narratives usually can't catch up, while narrative creators still have a chance to turn things around.
3. How's V?
What kind of conspiracy is more thought-provoking?
I think it's turning the essence of tragedy into a choice trap - whether burning self-destruction or slow, decaying suicide. The most terrifying part is that whichever path you choose will add shackles to exploration of the other path.
V is standing at a difficult choice, unable to escape personal or collective tragedy regardless of the choice.
Admittedly, V is a genius, works hardest in the industry, and is young. If Ethereum's future lies anywhere, the greatest opportunity is such a young mind with vision, bringing unlimited growth potential.
But any characteristic has its drawbacks.
At 30, there are 30-year-old drawbacks - too easily surrounded by small-minded people, too easily trapped in verbal honey.
V's speeches at every venue are completely betting on L2, which is correct, with many logically consistent reasons.
A great reason is that EF is best at on-chain, not off-chain. He has infinite on-chain creativity, but linking to off-chain needs partners. However, EF can no longer divide the cake, so why not position itself as a platform, leaving exhibition spaces for each project team to bring their resources, with EF giving all desired titles.
But who is transmitting these reasons to V? Why did they become his deeply rooted expansion direction?
If L1 is good enough, why need L2's empty city? How to handle the gulf between L2s?
EF's next upgrade phase begins returning to L1 experience, and the biggest resistance won't come from L1 itself, but from L2s.
This is the current choice trap.
4. Web3+ Gaming is Unwilling but a Trap
After running dozens of venues this time, Web3 gaming venues were the most daring to speak, perhaps because few people were there, allowing more grounded insights to be shared.
I initially entered the industry due to Loot, Axie, and running shoes breaking circles, but now everyone has awakened - players, investors. What remains is past obsession.
Those still investing here can only console themselves: ecological positioning, defensive positioning, considering costs.
Previously, games had countless good reasons to become a good business. Even three years ago, game license controls were an opportunity for Web3 gaming's outbreak. Gaming's hardware needs are naturally different from other financial scenarios, so Web3 gaming public chains have always been a continuous direction.
But from play-to-earn to on-chain to TG games, everything became a trap.
Because crypto gaming's dopamine incentives are less effective than inscriptions.
During inscriptions' peak, who wasn't naturally awake at 6 AM and struggling to sleep at 3 AM? What game could have a more pure, direct core incentive?
But they don't bring new users, only mutually driving traffic to inflate data and fool investors. Once just fabricating account data, now even conducting joint audit fabrications. Even Web3 gaming investors don't play games, having only played Contra.
Crypto should do DeFi, not games.
Gaming companies treating Web3 as a new field for game development - from Perfect World to Korean game conglomerates to Western metaverse grand narratives - all hang in the wasteland left by crypto gaming.
Throughout, it's these 100,000 spoiled users who won't play if not on-chain, and only play for financial attributes. If they want financial attributes, they might as well play MEME.
If educating external users from zero to enter the chain, why bother? Who wants to do bitter user education?
But gaming itself is indeed a good business. Mihayou's peripherals provide a 10% total revenue increase, with potential gross margins reaching 70%.
Currently, there's no team doing full gaming profitability, and gaming as a product providing emotional value generates value even in the process, unlike many on-chain products with pure result value (like public chains that lose value if no one plays).
So, gaming will continue to deceive some investors who aren't ready to give up.
6 billion effective addresses, believing this is the internet of '94, keep accumulating, the thicker the dung, the more fragrant the flower.
4, Is the Bear Market Coming?
These years have seen relatively bearish but not the most bearish times, and also witnessed breakthrough eras. During each narrative-confused period, it seems to be around the HK conference.
After last year's Bitcoin Asia, inscriptions cooled down, the market chilled, project teams faced greater pressure, and the more mysterious operations, the harder it was to think calmly.
This conference had many familiar faces as usual, but projects have changed 2-3 rounds. Serial entrepreneurs are often subject to mockery, but are more worth cherishing.
Those who have seen cycles know: Bear market is the opportunity for Builders.
Only with years of pit-falling experience, now clearer about what can survive.
The "Enterprise Blockchain" movement was widely seen as a dead end, but with the emergence of L2s, this movement has been revitalized, with Soneium being a typical example.
The increasingly ineffective "decel" community can roar about how mainstream actors are unethical and terrible, but cannot truly provide better alternatives.
But these are all pits
DeFi originally wanted to replace banks, NFT wanted to redefine ownership, and the metaverse was supposed to become a new gathering place for people. But after billions of dollars of promises, the only thing widely used is stablecoins, and their corresponding trading pairs and markets.
Some say businesses without repeat purchases are tough, constantly seeking new users, with some scenarios adding long-term after-sales service, continuously entangling with old customers until they collapse. Actually, high liquidity and lack of core retention are also tough businesses.
In these businesses, the biggest losers this round are the new vulnerable group: VCs, from once guiding projects with hundred-fold returns to now being carved up by project teams, rarely making money. TGE selling is also first profited by project teams and market makers.
They dare not invest further, losing on each investment. It's more a problem of early project operations than an industry issue.
The era of building infrastructure through narratives has ended, and high-valuation, low-circulation projects have no survival space. All VC project valuation systems are being reconstructed, and old projects are reshuffling.
In the new cycle, don't be too policy-superstitious.
Hong Kong has indeed changed significantly, but the underlying tone is still: "We accept it, just don't mess it up."
Now the market is institutionalized. It's no longer a situation where small startup ideas can challenge. Either adapt and learn this game, or be eliminated. It's not easy to unilaterally dominate, and the cooperation between institutions and entrepreneurs has just begun.
5, Where are the Opportunities Ahead?
It seems like scolding, but things done badly should indeed be criticized. After criticism, return to rationality. After all, these years weren't all a mess.
After the inscription wave, it caught everyone off guard, but six months later, what remained was layer-by-layer optimization of infrastructure.
The current meme storm is halfway through, from GMGN to Axiom, leaving behind products that understand demand and technologies proficient in blockchain fundamentals. Many can't achieve excellence without mastering underlying technologies.
With GMGN-like sudden wealth but lack of cake-sharing, forcing quality talents to flow within the industry.
In terms of population, after entering deep waters, a wave of user education was completed, and high-school scientific research shifted, making the future industry's talent base very solid.
In direction, blockchain is being demystified, and capital's rush towards big protocols has changed. While VCs are more cautious now, tools and application layers with clear business models and user groups are ushering in objective evaluation.
Cryptography has reached a bottleneck, and users' operational targets are breaking limits.
Because many real-world behaviors can't be cryptographically proven, and not everything can be solved by decentralization. Efficiency and technical bottlenecks are there, and each bottleneck is an opportunity. The future won't continuously maintain an unbridgeable centralization-decentralization gap, but rather both sides compromising.
Before having a clear target, the focus should be on protecting one's attention, improving the ability to identify garbage, and maintaining a good mood through market cycles to survive long-term.
6, Finally
My disappointment with this industry is real, stemming from early expectations too high, completely treating the coined term "web3" as a next-generation infrastructure-level scale.
But now, if it's seen merely as crypto finance 3, that would be more rational.
Ignore attempts that don't align with crypto finance.
There will always be a group pursuing freedom. Making the best tools and facilities for these people is good enough.
To friends reading until now, your attention is precious. Don't let others' gossip flood your life, otherwise when ordinary people's information sources are monopolized by Twitter KOLs and abstract communities, you'll only become "consensus cannon fodder".
What's truly worth focusing on is always those who become KOLs incidentally after achieving excellence in their primary field.
A good friend (@Odyssey_Leexixi) said:
Now, everyone no longer believes in inflated bubbles, which is also reflected at the conference. Low-hanging fruits have been picked, and everyone is turning to pursue product-market fit, creating products that truly meet user needs, have cash flow, and have business models.
From market dream rate to market share rate, I really like this transformation because it's what I've always wanted to do.
