Introduction

Memes have always played a crucial role in crypto culture, often simplifying complex financial concepts into digestible and engaging ideas. While some memes focus on humor, others serve as strategic signals within blockchain communities.

One such meme is (3,3), a term that emerged from game theory and became a defining concept in DeFi 2.0. Unlike typical memecoins, (3,3) wasn’t created as a tradable token but as a symbol of cooperative financial strategies in decentralized finance.

Originally associated with OlympusDAO, (3,3) encouraged participants to stake their assets instead of selling, creating long-term value for the community. Over time, the meme spread beyond OlympusDAO, influencing projects like Wonderland, KlimaDAO, TempleDAO, Curve Finance, and ve(3,3).

However, as DeFi evolved, (3,3)-inspired models faced major risks, leading to liquidity crises and collapses and criticism that these projects resembled Ponzi schemes in disguise. This article explores how (3,3) became a cultural movement, its role in DeFi branding, its inspired projects, and the controversies surrounding its sustainability.

The Genesis of (3,3): OlympusDAO and Game Theory

Understanding OlympusDAO

Launched in early 2021 by an anonymous developer known as Zeus, OlympusDAO aimed to create a decentralized reserve currency, OHM, backed by a treasury of crypto assets rather than traditional fiat currencies. This approach sought to reduce the cryptocurrency market’s dependence on fiat-backed stablecoins and provide a store of value not pegged to the US dollar.

The (3,3) Meme and Game Theory

The (3,3) meme is derived from the Prisoner’s Dilemma, a fundamental concept in game theory that illustrates how individual decisions impact collective outcomes. In the context of OlympusDAO, participants have three primary actions:​

1. Staking (+3): Locking up OHM tokens to earn rewards, reducing the circulating supply and potentially increasing the token’s value.​
2. Bonding (+1): Providing liquidity or assets to the treasury in exchange for discounted OHM tokens.​
3. Selling (-1): Liquidating OHM holdings, which can exert downward pressure on the token’s price.​

The (3,3) notation represents the scenario where all participants choose to stake their tokens, leading to the most favorable outcome for the community. This cooperative strategy enhances the protocol’s stability and aligns individual incentives with collective prosperity. ​

OlympusDAO’s Branding and the Rise of (3,3)

Community Engagement Through (3,3)

OlympusDAO effectively leveraged the (3,3) meme to foster a strong sense of community and commitment among its users. Supporters added (3,3) to their social media handles, signaling their alignment with the protocol’s cooperative staking strategy.

This organic adoption transformed (3,3) into a cultural symbol within the crypto community, representing unity and shared belief in the project’s vision. ​

Memes as Branding Tools

The success of (3,3) underscores the power of memes as branding instruments in the DeFi space. By simplifying complex concepts into easily digestible symbols, memes like (3,3) facilitate wider understanding and engagement. They serve as rallying points for communities, fostering identity and cohesion among participants.​

The (3,3) Influence

OlympusDAO’s innovative approach and the popularity of the (3,3) meme have inspired several other DeFi projects to adopt similar models.

Wonderland

Wonderland was one of the most notable projects that adopted the (3,3) model. Launched as a fork of OlympusDAO, it aimed to create a decentralized reserve currency on the Avalanche network using its native token, TIME.

The project offered high staking rewards to incentivize users to lock their tokens, similar to OlympusDAO’s approach. However, Wonderland faced significant challenges, including controversies surrounding its treasury management, which led to a loss of investor confidence and a decline in token value.​

KlimaDAO

KlimaDAO integrated the (3,3) model with environmental initiatives by creating a carbon-backed digital currency. Users could stake KLIMA tokens, with the protocol’s treasury acquiring carbon credits to back the token’s value. This approach aimed to incentivize carbon offsetting through DeFi mechanisms. While innovative, KlimaDAO faced challenges related to the volatility of carbon credit markets and the sustainability of its high staking rewards. ​

TempleDAO

TempleDAO adopted the (3,3) model to create a “safe haven” for DeFi investors, focusing on providing sustainable and predictable yields. The project emphasized community engagement and long-term commitment, encouraging users to stake their tokens to achieve collective benefits. Despite its unique positioning, TempleDAO encountered difficulties in maintaining its promised yields amid market fluctuations.

Curve Finance and ve(3,3)

Curve Finance, a decentralized exchange optimized for stablecoin trading, introduced the ve(3,3) model to enhance its tokenomics. In this model, users can lock their CRV tokens to receive voting escrow tokens (veCRV), granting them governance rights and a share of trading fees. This mechanism aligns with the (3,3) philosophy by rewarding long-term participation and aligning individual incentives with the protocol’s success.​

Risks and Criticisms of the (3,3) Model

While the (3,3) model introduced innovative mechanisms to promote staking and protocol stability, it also attracted criticisms and highlighted inherent risks associated with its implementation.​

Sustainability Concerns

The high staking rewards promised by (3,3) models raised questions about their long-term sustainability. Such high yields often rely on continuous inflows of new participants to maintain the reward structure, drawing parallels to Ponzi schemes. When user growth slows or reverses, the model can become unsustainable, leading to a collapse in token value. ​

Liquidity Risks

Staking tokens typically involve locking them for a certain period, reducing liquidity for participants. In volatile markets, this illiquidity can pose significant risks, as stakers are unable to react promptly to market downturns, potentially leading to substantial losses.

The Collapse of (3,3) Models: What Went Wrong?

Despite their initial success, most (3,3)-inspired DeFi projects eventually failed due to inherent economic flaws.

The Flywheel Effect: (3,3) in Reverse

(3,3) models depend on a constant flow of new participants. When new demand slows down, the system collapses in reverse:

• Stakers realize they can exit for profit before rewards dilute.
• More people sell, triggering a death spiral.
• The treasury struggles to support token value.

This is why early adopters in (3,3) projects made profits, while later entrants suffered losses when the economic flywheel broke.

Liquidity Crises and “Bank Runs”

Many (3,3) projects lacked sustainable liquidity. When trust eroded, users rushed to withdraw funds, creating bank runs.

• Wonderland lost credibility after its scandal, triggering mass sell-offs.
• OlympusDAO saw OHM crash from $1,400+ to under $30, as more users sold than staked.
• Even KlimaDAO, despite its ESG mission, couldn’t sustain its economy.

Once liquidity dried up, the flywheel mechanism turned against holders, proving that infinite staking rewards were not viable.

Ponzi Scheme Allegations

Critics argue that (3,3) staking models were unsustainable from the start, comparing them to Ponzi schemes:

• They relied on new investors to pay old investors.
• The treasury’s ability to back the token weakened over time.
• High APYs encouraged speculation rather than real utility.

Many in the crypto space now view (3,3) models as a financial experiment that exposed the risks of DeFi staking without fundamental utility.

The Future of (3,3): Is It Still Relevant Today?

Despite the failures of OlympusDAO, Wonderland, and similar projects, (3,3) still influences DeFi today.

Lessons from ve(3,3) and Sustainable DeFi Models

Projects like Curve Finance’s ve(3,3) modified the OlympusDAO model to prioritize governance incentives instead of unsustainable APYs.

• ve(3,3) shows that staking models can work if properly structured.
• Many DeFi protocols are now shifting toward utility-driven staking rather than speculative rewards.

Memes Still Drive Crypto Narratives

Even though (3,3)-based economies collapsed, the meme remains iconic.

• OlympusDAO proved the power of branding in DeFi.
• Crypto communities still use (3,3) as a reference to game-theoretic strategies.
• Future projects may revive (3,3) staking with improved mechanics.

While the era of (3,3) high-yield staking is over, its branding impact shapes crypto narratives.

Conclusion

The (3,3) meme was crucial in shaping DeFi 2.0, turning game theory into a powerful branding tool. Originally popularized by OlympusDAO, it helped build a strong community and inspired multiple projects like Wonderland, KlimaDAO, and ve(3,3).

While some of these projects failed due to unsustainable staking models and liquidity crises, others, like Curve Finance’s ve(3,3), adapted the concept into a more practical system. The downfall of (3,3)-based projects exposed the risks of high-yield staking and the dangers of relying on continuous new investment to sustain rewards.

Many now see these models as a financial experiment that ultimately collapsed under its own weight. However, the (3,3) meme still holds cultural significance in crypto, proving that branding and social engagement play a huge role in DeFi’s success. While its economic model has largely been abandoned, the lessons from (3,3) continue to shape how new DeFi projects design their staking and governance mechanisms.