In the crypto market, each project has its own strategy to attract users and create value. Two names being compared recently are $PAWS and $NOT – but is it really reasonable to put them on the same scale? Let's analyze the differences in their approaches.
1. NOT's Strategy: Paving the Way with Own Capital
$NOT (Notcoin) made a big hit thanks to its unique distribution and community development model:
- No fund raising from users.
- Leveraging its own capital to stimulate user growth on Telegram.
- Positioning itself as a game + social mining project, utilizing the massive user base from Telegram.
- Not pushing the blockchain technology narrative but focusing on simple, accessible experiences.
With this strategy, NOT has attracted millions of users, turning them into a loyal community. They not only made a profit when the token was launched but also continued to engage with the NOT ecosystem through other bots and mini-apps.
The result? NOT was listed at $0.007, pumped to $0.01 in 3 weeks, and maintained high liquidation. NOT's success did not come from having excellent technology, but from how they created natural demand for the token and expanded the ecosystem.
2. PAWS's Strategy: Blockchain Layer 3 & DeFi
Unlike NOT, $PAWS positions itself as a true blockchain project:
- Focusing on Layer 3: PAWS is built on PAW Chain, self-defining as a Layer 3 blockchain with strong cross-chain capabilities.
- Developing a DeFi ecosystem: Aiming for decentralized financial solutions, not just focusing on community elements.
- Raising funds from the community: PAWS has raised capital from users through airdrop and staking mechanisms.
- Pre-market listing: The token has appeared on Bybit before official listing, with an initial price of around $0.00074/token.
PAWS clearly has larger technological ambitions, but the question is: Is this approach suitable for the current market context?
3. Market Context: Which Strategy is More Effective?
If comparing the two strategies in the current crypto market context:
- NOT leverages the SocialFi trend: The current market favors entertaining, easily accessible projects. NOT's approach of not requiring users to invest money upfront gives them a significant advantage in attracting users.
- PAWS follows the DeFi & blockchain path: DeFi was once a major trend but is currently losing its appeal. Building a new blockchain requires significant time and truly superior technology to attract both developers and users.
PAWS's weakness is that they are trying to build a new blockchain ecosystem while the current market may not be ready for another Layer 3. Technology alone is not enough to create FOMO without a strong community element.
4. Conclusion: Who Has the Advantage?
In the short term, NOT's strategy is more effective because:
- They don't need to prove superior technology.
- Users can easily access and participate without investing money.
- Strong FOMO due to gamification and social mining mechanisms.
For PAWS, the project could succeed if:
- They develop a truly attractive use case for Layer 3.
- They have a stronger marketing strategy to attract the community.
- They address concerns about transparency and roadmap.
However, directly comparing PAWS and NOT is not entirely reasonable, as these two projects target completely different segments. The important thing is whether PAWS can learn from NOT to increase its chances of success.
Do you think PAWS will overtake NOT to become more successful this year? Share your perspective!
