NFT Follow-up & Best Practice to Prevent Your Community from Being Farmed One of the major problems faced by all projects is how to engage and keep engaging your community after releasing your token. This isn’t new, it’s something we’ve seen since the first Uniswap airdrop, then Blur, and more recently with chains like Berachain, Movement, Initia, and others. NFTs remain one of the simplest and most effective ways to gather a project’s community (if you know of a more effective method today, I’m open to ideas, personally, I still think it's the easiest). NFTs allow you to: - Centralize the attention of CT on a single NFT collection’s Twitter page. When a project gets the attention of a well-regarded NFT collection, CT thinks: “Whoa, this project could be big.” - Engage a community of thousands of holders who have often spent hundreds or even thousands of dollars to be part of that group (from a marketing perspective, that gives you a highly qualified panel of potential future customers for projects). Since the dawn of humanity, people have always needed to gather, it’s not likely to change unless humans are entirely replaced by AI. NFTs are still very easy to analyze in terms of project quality, even with the existence of tools like ChatGPT. This ease of judgment has contributed to the success of memecoins, and it’s also partly why NFTs continue to remain attractive. If you’ve used ChatGPT even a little, it’s pretty obvious when an artist is leading the project (which is basically the foundation for any good NFT collection). I’ve never understood why people say NFTs are dead—it’s just a crypto format. It’s like saying ERC20 or SPL tokens are dead, which makes no sense. Good NFTs survive, and good tokens survive too, as long as they have strong fundamentals. One of the challenges is that many communities get farmed when they become attractive, often by dishonest projects (a core team member of the project uses the PFP of a known collection, or a project’s Discord gives a special role to that community—this is now very common and well known). In my opinion, the best practice if you don’t want your community to be farmed and therefore avoid massive disappointment at the TGE and damage to your NFT community’s reputation is the following: Sign a deal at the moment when the two projects want to interact. The two core teams can agree on whether there will be an airdrop or not for the community. This mainly applies to already established, VC-backed NFT communities (and I think we’ll see more of these in the future). The clearest example is how many projects engaged with the Sloth community just to farm their traction. Projects that sign a deal could communicate about it publicly for marketing purpose. That reassures the community and encourages them to engage (and then they will "work" for their bag). I don’t see why such a deal couldn’t be signed, unless you’re doing mass marketing before your product is sufficiently developed, in which case you’re doing things backwards. And a good way to ensure projects continue to receive support from an NFT collection is by managing the release schedule of the portion of the supply allocated to that collection. Solutions for this already exist and are becoming more common. For example, Kingdomly’s marketplace has implemented an NFT staking solution that serves this purpose.