In December 2024, two events occurred almost simultaneously: Nike announced it would close its virtual sneaker studio RTFKT in January 2025; Adidas officially released its ALTS digital avatar series, three years in the making. The two world's largest sportswear brands made diametrically opposed choices at the same time. Similar divergence has spread throughout the industry. Over the past four years, almost all leading consumer brands have experimented with Web3: Starbucks launched the NFT membership program Odyssey, which closed after about 22 months; Louis Vuitton released the VIA Treasure Trunk, a digital collectible priced at €39,000, which continues to operate and expand its product line; Gucci opened a virtual store at Roblox; H&M experimented with a metaverse showroom; and LVMH even used a metaverse approach to present content at its 2023 shareholders' meeting. Both are leading brands, both have made high investments, and both claim to be optimistic about the long-term value of Web3—why are the outcomes so different? Before discussing specific cases, we need to return to a question: Why should traditional brands engage with Web3? In the wave of enthusiasm in 2021, many brands entered the market because "everyone else is doing it" or "it seems innovative." This lack of clear objectives inherently creates uncertainty—when brands haven't figured out the specific problems they want to solve, these technological attempts often resemble a high-cost demonstration rather than building long-term capabilities.