Looking at the recent Web3 developments of several leading brands, an interesting observation is that projects launched around the same time have followed completely different trajectories. On the surface, it seems to be a market environment issue, but a closer look reveals that the real watershed actually lies earlier: how the goals are set and which paths are chosen. In the same industry, why can some brands make a splash with their Web3 practices while others remain silent? The key is not the amount of resources but whether the strategy is clear and the execution is ruthless enough. The logic behind this is worth pondering.

View Original
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.
  • Reward
  • 7
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
FOMOrektGuyvip
· 01-07 07:55
The strategic execution capability is awesome; having more resources is useless without direction.
View OriginalReply0
HalfPositionRunnervip
· 01-07 07:54
A one-point difference in strategy can lead to a world of difference in results. Some brands just want to play around and are not serious at all. Execution is the greatest moat, no doubt about it. With the same cards, different strategies can truly lead to losing. Overhyped plans are less effective than quietly and diligently executing. If the early positioning was wrong, no matter how hard you try later, it's useless. That's why I only focus on execution, not stories. Having abundant resources is pointless if no one truly understands this game. Choosing the wrong path, even pouring money in, is just a waste of time. It's not the market environment; it's that the decision-makers haven't thought it through thoroughly.
View OriginalReply0
PaperHandsCriminalvip
· 01-07 07:47
Basically, it all comes down to who dares to bet. The resources aren't that different, but the courage just can't be gathered.
View OriginalReply0
TrustMeBrovip
· 01-07 07:46
Basically, some brands really want to do it, while others are just playing around. A slight difference in strategy can lead to vastly different outcomes. Execution is the key; having more money is useless. This round truly reveals who is seriously working on Web3. A poorly set roadmap, and all the resources are wasted. Some big companies just don't understand the logic of Web3, no wonder they lack influence. Starting from roughly the same point, how does one end up soaring while another just relaxes? It all comes down to the decision-making at that moment. Unclear goals are like digging your own grave. You could tell early on who would win, just by how they took the first step. Stacking resources can't fix strategic mistakes. It sounds simple, but there are very few brands brave enough to take action.
View OriginalReply0
SnapshotStrikervip
· 01-07 07:43
At the end of the day, it's a matter of execution; having money alone is useless. Brands without a clear strategy truly deserve to have no influence. These big companies simply haven't figured out what Web3 is supposed to do. Some projects fail right from the start because no one can see their potential. If the path is wrong, no matter how many resources you have, it's all in vain, really.
View OriginalReply0
TokenomicsShamanvip
· 01-07 07:36
To be honest, those still touting "more resources equals victory" should wake up. The real bottleneck is the strategic choke point.
View OriginalReply0
PanicSellervip
· 01-07 07:29
A vague strategy makes fierce execution futile; this is the real truth.
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)