2026-01-18 16:37:59

The crypto narrative problem runs deeper than most realize. Projects obsessed with certain buzzwords—meta this, runner that, dev everything—are actually shooting themselves in the foot. If you're serious about attracting mainstream adoption and genuine builders, ditch the tired jargon. Clean, straightforward naming reflects a mature ecosystem. Think about it: would you invest in something that sounds like it's trying too hard to be trendy? The projects winning long-term are the ones that let their utility speak instead of hiding behind marketing speak. Strip away the noise, and what's left is credibility.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

17 Likes

Reward
17
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LootboxPhobia

· 01-21 14:31

ngl, these projects really are shooting themselves in the foot. Constantly talking about this meta and that meta, it's getting annoying. It's more reliable to focus on genuinely building products.

View OriginalReply0

WagmiWarrior

· 01-20 09:32

That's right, those projects full of buzzwords are really unappealing. Wait, talking about utility is easy, but how do you package it so that beginners can understand? Some project names, honestly, I really don't want to touch.

View OriginalReply0

NFTregretter

· 01-20 05:59

Nah fr, these projects insisting on using this kind of flowery talk are really stupid. Exactly, a bunch of trash buzzwords like "meta" and "runner," who the hell would believe that? I'm already tired of this routine; I just want to see real, tangible stuff. These days, if you're still hyping concepts, it's basically hopeless. No worries, in a couple of years, you'll wake up; marketing garbage ultimately won't hold up.

View OriginalReply0

ImaginaryWhale

· 01-18 17:06

That's right, many projects' naming choices are truly brainless. Something like "meta" and so on, just hearing it makes me want to vomit. --- If you're so dedicated to naming, why not just write "I'm really bad" on your forehead? --- Honestly tired of every project trying to sound like the next billion-dollar unicorn... Can't they just focus on building something? --- Genuine quality projects don't need this kind of marketing nonsense; they can speak for themselves. --- That's why some coins have been stuck in the same place for two years—just changing names.

View OriginalReply0

Token_Sherpa

· 01-18 17:05

ngl this hits different. been watching projects implode because they thought tokenomics could be masked by "ecosystem vibrancy" buzzwords... spoiler alert: it can't. utility actually has to exist

Reply0

down_only_larry

· 01-18 16:53

Nah, really. Do those projects have to come up with ridiculously fancy names to survive? That's hilarious. Utility is the real key; no one really cares how fancy the name is. Well said, that marketing and packaging nonsense can go to hell. Hearing you say that, I remember how much I was fooled by those buzzwords before... so exhausting. Mature projects don't need all that; any name will do and still be popular.

View OriginalReply0

MevWhisperer

· 01-18 16:46

Really, words like "meta" are overused and just make me feel annoyed. Projects with simple names are indeed easier to trust.

View OriginalReply0

MrRightClick

· 01-18 16:46

To be honest, projects that are full of "meta" and "runner" are really disappointing. Those with real strength have already quietly made a fortune, do they still need to hype it up like this?

View OriginalReply0