The Invisible Structure of Influence in the Encryption Community: How Twitter Discourse is Concentrated in the Hands of a Few

The crypto Twitter community is often seen as the most decentralized information exchange network in the financial sector, where everyone seems free to share insights, build their own audience, and participate in permissionless discussions. However, a closer look reveals that there are actually about 100 accounts that control millions of people’s perception of cryptocurrency, project interest, and money flow. It’s actually a highly centralized ecosystem of influence in the guise of the grassroots, and it’s so sophisticated that even traditional media executives will be amazed.

The Central Circle of Market Manipulation

Encrypted Twitter is not an egalitarian large dialogue platform, but a series of concentric circles, with influence radiating outward from the core, and distribution is extremely uneven:

First Layer: King Maker (5-10 Accounts) Not only do these accounts have a large fan base, but they also have a strong network effect. The content they post gets hundreds of retweets in a matter of minutes. An inadvertent mention can drive up the price of a token, a single criticism can destroy a project’s prospects, and their endorsement can immediately give legitimacy to a new project. When an account at this level mentions a project, it not only brings a lot of interaction, but also attracts institutional attention, venture capital interest, and retail investor fear of missing out.

Second Layer: Amplifier (20-30 accounts) These accounts are responsible for transforming the first-level tweets into trending topics. By quoting and retweeting, adding comments, they ensure that the information is conveyed to specific communities, such as venture capital partners, well-known developers, and ecosystem leaders.

Layer 3: Echo Chamber (70-75 Accounts) Influencers with moderate impact primarily repeat the viewpoints of the first and second layers to their followers. They rarely offer original insights but play a key role in expanding the narrative, making the viewpoints of the first layer appear to be a widespread community consensus.

All others: Audience This part of the users mainly digests and responds to the content that the top 100 opinion leaders have identified as worth discussing.

The Practical Path of Narrative Communication

The information diffusion process is not random, but follows a predictable pattern:

1. Sowing Stage: The first layer accounts share viewpoints, insights, or discoveries, which may be genuine insider information or strategic promotions.

2. Amplification Stage: The second-layer account references and forwards within 1-3 hours, adding personal interpretations to create the illusion of independent discovery.

3. Verification Stage: Third-tier accounts echo one after another, providing supporting evidence, forming a social consensus that “all smart people hold the same view.”

4. Cascading Effect: Ordinary users share fragmented content of narratives, and although they may misunderstand key details, they still spread the core message.

5. Institutionalization Stage: Encryption media writes articles, citing “encryption Twitter sentiment”, making this narrative an accepted fact.

The entire cycle usually takes only 24 to 48 hours. By the time most people notice a “hot” topic, the influence economy has already determined its trajectory.

The Economic Model Behind Influence

The influence of encryption on Twitter is not only about prestige but also a complex business model:

Direct cash-out method:

• Disguised as accidentally discovered paid promotion content
• Obtain the “Consultant” position in the mentioned project
• Obtain speaking fees from conferences and events
• Profit through subscription newsletters and quality content

Indirect Value Capture:

• Access to project information and token opportunities in advance
• Gain preferential allocation in financing rounds
• Build connections with top venture capitalists and founders
• Obtain board positions and equity opportunities

**Portfolio Pull: **Many top accounts are also early investors or advisors in encryption projects.

Gatekeeping Issues and Systemic Bias

The concentration of influence from encrypted Twitter has led to multiple systemic biases:

• Geographic Bias: Most tier-one accounts are located in the United States, forming a U.S.-centric global technology narrative. Social Network Bias: Projects that have an existing connection to an influential account receive a disproportionate amount of attention
• Wealth Bias: Accounts holding encryption wealth can participate in exclusive trades, forming a compounded advantage.
• Language Bias: Non-English projects and communities are systematically undervalued.
• Professional Bias: Financial engineering receives more attention than technological innovation because finance professionals are better at self-promotion.

Information Filtering Mechanism: What Content Gets Promoted and What Gets Ignored

Analyzing encryption Twitter trends, it is clear to see the content selection pattern:

Content that is strongly promoted:

• A new layer blockchain (especially compatible with the Ethereum Virtual Machine)
• Decentralized financial protocol with an innovative token mechanism
• Any projects labeled “infrastructure” or “expansion”
• Tools and services for developers

Content Systematically Ignored:

• Projects without token or venture capital support
• Technological innovation without financial speculation
• A development team focused on product delivery rather than marketing
• International projects with a non-U.S. background

This has created a feedback loop that makes cryptocurrency development increasingly focused on attracting the attention of Twitter users, rather than genuinely driving technological advancement.

The Illusion of Decentralized Discourse

Encryption Twitter positions itself as a disruptor of traditional media, yet its power structure is strikingly similar:

Traditional Media: A few editors decide which content is worth reporting, journalists amplify these decisions, and the audience consumes the filtered information.

Encryption Twitter: A small number of primary accounts decide which projects are worth following, while secondary/tertiary accounts amplify these decisions, and the audience consumes filtered information.

The main difference is that the impact economy of encryption Twitter is less transparent in terms of power structure and financial incentives.

Substantive Impact

The concentration of influence on encrypted Twitter has produced widespread practical consequences:

• Capital Allocation: Venture capital firms reference Twitter sentiment in their investment decisions, popular projects get meeting opportunities, while less popular projects are ignored.
• Developer Focus: The direction chosen by builders for projects partly depends on which areas are esteemed in social dynamics.
• Retail Behavior: Millions make financial decisions based on narratives from accounts with undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Media Reports: Encryption journalists use Twitter sentiment as an important indicator, further amplifying the choices of the influence economy.

How to cope with this reality

Suggestions for different participants:

For Builders: Understanding technical excellence but lacking a narrative may mean being overlooked. Either learn to engage in the influence game or seek allies willing to help.

For Investors: Recognize that trending topics on Twitter are a lagging indicator of first-level account opinions, rather than true market sentiment. By the time something becomes “trending”, the best opportunity has often been missed.

For users: Pay attention to accounts that continuously share independent views and in-depth technical analysis, and avoid those that only echo mainstream opinions or engage in subtle promotion.

For the entire ecosystem: It must be recognized that the concentration of influence on Twitter actually undermines the core value of decentralization that the blockchain field pursues.

Conclusion

The operation of Twitter is not malfunctioning - it is running entirely as designed. The real issue is not the existence of influence networks (which are inevitable), but rather that people pretend Twitter represents organic, decentralized discussions, when in fact it is a complex economy of influence with a highly centralized power structure and undisclosed economic incentives.

In this seemingly open discussion space, we need higher transparency and a diversity of voices to achieve true information decentralization.