A New PaaS Model: Deciphering Friend.Tech's Top Gamers' Marketing Strategies
PaaS (Ponzi as a Service) gave KOL a new approach and tool. Article: Aki Network ResearchFriend.tech and its core gameplay, Friend.tech, have been introduced in many detail. It is a Twitter-level real-name application that sells private room tickets. Mathematical formulas and the relationship between supply and demand determine the ticket price, and you can have a direct conversation with KOL after entering the venue. The key words for the core gameplay are (3,3): What is (3,3)? A strategy that theoretically makes a profit for everyone. What about being more specific? In other words, “you hold it, I won't sell it; we promise each other not to let go”. Everyone enjoyed sharing the benefits to the fullest before the collapse. Driven by OlympusDAO, (3,3) has become one of the most prominent MLM memes in the crypto world, bringing significant financial benefits to participants. Back to Friend.tech, what role did (3,3) play in this new game? Actually, this strategy is simple: Assuming that Xiaoming's Key is worth 0.1 ETH, his friend Xiao Wang's Key is also worth 0.1 ETH. If they buy each other's keys, the first income is 5% of the processing fee (the other 5% goes to the project party), and more importantly, according to the price curve (bonding curve), the value of both of their keys will rise to 0.12 ETH. Next, Xiaoming continued to search for another friend, Xiaohong, and they also completed one (3,3) commitment/transaction. As this process continues, the assets of all participants will greatly increase in value. If it continues like this, the assets of all participants in this game will fly to the sky with their left foot on their right foot. If it doesn't crash, everything looks great. Today, let's take a look at the crash analysis and talk about why Friend.tech is good. PaaS - Ponzi as a Service The good thing is that the decentralized Ponzi as a Service Friend.tech provides a new paradigm for monetizing influence, allowing everyone to create their own Ponzi with a low threshold. The trust and value of these Ponzi are based on personal influence and socialization, providing a natural and more direct breeding ground for nurturing an imaginary community. The foundation of everything: Monetizing influence Influence is valuable. In this day and age, getting others to listen to you and taking time to read your graphics on the toilet instead of selling meat at ABCFP is a huge skill. Whether inside or outside the community, big or small, the biggest pain point for every influencer is always how to monetize their influence. Don't watch the usual tweets shouting out loud. People in the circle cheer up. How to turn influence into impressive revenue is still a problem. There are traditional methods, such as bringing goods or platform promotion; you can also be a trader yourself and sincerely preach. The former comes in quickly, consumes one's own credit, and there is also a risk that the truck will roll over at the delivery platform; the latter also consumes one's own credit or even money when the money comes slowly or not. In the Web2 era, content creators usually earn revenue through subscriptions and rewards. The main business of the financial giants is not investing, but rather starting the planet and collecting subscription fees for the QQ Group. In the Web3 era, most people have added some new ways to play in the traditional monetization model, but they are still not out of the rut of bringing goods. Is there any way for everyone to make money instead of the vicious domestic consumption of always “you take my pocket, I take your pocket”? Then Friend.tech came along. A solution was proposed: “Families, let's save a game and cut others together!” It's common in MLM agencies around the world, but Friend.tech isn't. How exactly did FRIEND.tech achieve this conventional innovation, thereby attracting significant amounts of capital and traffic? Trust and community trust are primary considerations in (3) strategies. (3,3) Although it is the optimal solution in game theory, this strategy is essentially an unstable structure. Most participants have thought about the question of “when do I quit”; it's just a question of sooner or later. In Friend.tech's (3, 3), Key holders work together to form a community and community under their KOL “banner,” creating a higher threshold of trust. KOLs are individuals in a virtual social network, and their value and reputation support the whole of Frien...