One of the recurring questions I keep hearing, and that I ask myself once I search for projects is about numbers on social media. Is it better to have big numbers, even if many are botted, or fewer but real ones?
Which of the two has the most impact, and which one do companies in Web3 actually seek?
Let’s see. Most of the people I’ve met in Web3 and the projects I’ve observed, especially those with a certain work culture, push for big numbers. The first thing you hear when you join their marketing team or talk to their marketer is something like: “They asked me to grow the followers on X from 5K to 200K in 3 months.”
My first thought when I heard this from a very good friend of mine was: based on X’s algorithm, is this even possible? How many real cases are there where someone actually went from 5K to 200K followers, basically a 40x increase, without bots?
My answer is probably close to 1%.
So does this mean that growing your followers almost always involves fake numbers, bots, and fake profiles? And what’s the real impact of this on your project?
Many still think “big numbers = more credibility.” But the real question is: what happens now that Twitter became X, and it’s even easier to check how many real followers you actually have? What happens when you show 200K followers but get only 500 impressions, 10 likes, and 0 comments?
The first reaction from a real user… who should be impressed by your “hundreds of thousands” of followers will likely be: “Why the hell do they claim such big numbers if no one engages with them???”
And that’s where credibility, which leaders once believed was built on big numbers, disappears. Why?
It’s simple: either you’re cheating the system and new users quickly realize your community is made of 0 real users, or you do have real users, but your project is already cooked because no one engages with you anymore.
So let’s flip the perspective. Imagine you’re a new DEX. You only have 2,000 followers, compared to another project with 200K. But out of those 2,000, 50% actively engage with your posts. They all have the blue checkmark, their comments don’t sound like bots, and they share your content while actually using your product on a weekly basis. Which one looks more reliable and valuable to you… the over-pumped profile with fake numbers, or the “small one” with a very active and engaging community?
In my years of experience in Web3, I’ve learned there isn’t a unanimous answer to this. Personally, I would always go with small but quality numbers= few but good. However, I’m also aware that due to old practices and the hype-and-pump mentality surrounding this field with tokens, this behavior reflects heavily on social media as well.
But once you launch your token, trick a few people, and maybe get your TGE on a good exchange, what will remain after a few months? If the token drops and people exit because they realize the community was never really there?
So my question to you is: next time you evaluate a project whether you’re joining, investing, or collaborating, will you look first at the follower count, or at the engagement, the real conversations, and the users who show up consistently? Which one do you believe shows the real value of a Web3 community?
. In Web3 growth strategies, focusing on “quality” rather than just “numbers” is far more sustainable. 200K fake followers might catch some short-term attention, but it destroys trust in the long run. On the other hand, 2K real users actively engaging with your product is the strongest proof of real adoption and community trust. In my opinion, the real winners in Web3 will be the ones who prioritize engagement over inflated follower counts.