Can you become a Web3 KOL?

A couple of days ago, Portal Labs saw an article about KOL funding rounds, where the author said, "The KOL funding round is a narrow door that the primary market leaves for ordinary people." Indeed, the rise of KOLs has provided many ordinary Web3 users with real opportunities to access more cutting-edge information, participate in higher-level discussions, and even influence project narratives. Coupled with the takeoff of the Web3 KOL economy in recent years and the emphasis on InfoFi this year, many Web3 players are also trying to use the KOL path to open up their upward space in the Web3 ecosystem. However, to truly take the first step on this path, perhaps you need to answer a more crucial question first: Are you really suitable to be a Web3 KOL? Which of these three conditions do you meet? In many people's eyes, becoming a KOL is a replicable process: post content, make your presence felt at events, get to know more people, professionally package your account, and occasionally add some data exposure; attention seems to grow naturally with these actions. But once you actually enter the industry, you'll find that what you build up through actions can only bring short-term buzz, but it can't build long-term trust, nor is it enough to keep you at the forefront of the market. Web3 features high information density, rapid narrative updates, and short verification cycles. Whether a KOL can survive truly depends on: Can you meet the three fundamental conditions required of all KOLs? First, can you consistently produce content and create personalized value within that content? Regular updates are a prerequisite, but Web3 doesn't reward "frequency itself"; it rewards "what only you can provide." You need to gradually develop your own judgment methods, independent perspectives, information filtering logic, or a thought process that your audience is willing to rely on through repeated expression. True value isn't about being "recognized," but about being "needed." Stability allows you to appear, but personalized value ensures your continued existence. Many people can consistently post, but without developing their own value proposition, they quickly stagnate. Secondly, can you withstand public scrutiny and long-term exposure? The Web3 media environment is transparent and direct; your opinions, judgments, collaborators, and even a single inappropriate word will be recorded, cited, and amplified. The essence of becoming a KOL isn't "expression," but "bearing the consequences of expression in the public sphere." This means you need the ability to remain stable in debates, self-correct under scrutiny, and continue outputting even after mistakes have been reviewed. What audiences truly trust isn't that you never make mistakes, but that you maintain honesty, restraint, and consistency even in a highly exposed environment. In other words, public scrutiny isn't an obstacle, but rather the working environment of a Web3 KOL; your ability to adapt to this almost determines how far you can go. Third, are you prepared to face a 3-6 month investment period with almost no returns? All KOLs experience a period of near-silent growth in their early stages: no interaction, no collaboration, no income, and even the possibility of being seen is uncertain. In the fast-paced Web3 industry, this period of no feedback is often longer than in traditional content industries, and it's easier to doubt one's direction. Those who truly survive are those willing to view the first three to six months as a "construction period" rather than a "failure period." You need to maintain your pace without encouragement, maintain your judgment without applause, and continue accumulating experience without results. This mindset sounds simple, but it's precisely the fundamental reason why most people leave this path. If you can meet at least two of these three conditions, this path is feasible for you; but if these requirements feel burdensome, unworthy, or don't fit your pace, then the answer is clear: you're not suited to be a Web3 KOL. Which direction is right for you? If you're certain you possess the fundamental conditions to be a KOL, then the next question is more realistic: What kind of KOL are you suited to be? In the Web3 ecosystem, most KOLs' core capabilities ultimately fall into two paths: either research-centric or transaction- and Alpha-centric. Your content format can be diverse, but which type you are fundamentally more like will determine how you build value and your subsequent growth trajectory. The research-oriented path essentially relies on understanding to accumulate influence. To take this path, you need to be able to explain the complex structure of the industry clearly, break down the key logic of a project in a way that others can understand, explain the risks effectively, and maintain a relatively stable and self-consistent judgment framework in your long-term communication. Research-based KOLs don't rely on quick market sentiment; they rely on "whether others can gain understanding from you that they wouldn't otherwise have access to." This means continuously reading public materials, tracing English sources, building your own structure for narratives and trends, and engaging in dialogue with project teams, institutions, or people within the ecosystem to form your own judgments from firsthand information. The monetization methods for this type of KOL are usually quite clear: after stabilizing their influence, common methods include content collaborations with project teams, consulting support, event hosting, analytical support for technical or economic models, and media content collaborations. The commercialization speed of research-based KOLs isn't fast, but once a trust structure is established, business opportunities are more stable and long-term than those of Alpha-based KOLs; especially in-depth researchers, who are more likely to receive non-traffic-based income such as institutional invitations and project consulting. However, this path is time-consuming, generally requiring three to six months of accumulation to gain visibility, and at least one more narrative cycle to gain industry recognition. In the eyes of Chinese-speaking users, the value of research-oriented KOLs is usually reflected in "helping me understand things I don't understand." This is a capability that the Chinese community has long lacked: there are actually not many people who can structurally explain complex mechanisms. Especially for Chinese users, most industry content is first presented in English, so your ability to overcome information time differences, grasp the source material, and build your own understanding path is itself a competitive advantage. However, if you have a Chinese background, this path will involve several more practical factors: the lag in English information is the most superficial problem, but deeper is the difference in cultural expression—Western industry discussions are more direct and confrontational, while Chinese expression is more subtle, which will directly affect your ability to maintain professional expression in public discussions. Another issue is compliance: research-oriented KOLs can easily touch upon tokens, project collaborations, economic models, and even potential endorsement obligations, all of which require greater caution in the Chinese context. You not only need to know how to disclose partnerships, but also how to judge whether the content involves investment advice, whether it might be misinterpreted, which partnerships are unsuitable, and which content shouldn't be written too directly. These restrictions will make research-oriented KOLs with a Chinese-speaking background more cautious about content boundaries. This is both a challenge and a differentiating advantage: if you can develop a stable expression within these boundaries, your content will have higher credibility. Those who take the research-oriented path ultimately compete on whether they can become the one others "come to you," rather than the one "watching the show." Furthermore, this path is destined to be slow, but that slowness is its source of value. The "trader-type" approach is built more on "rapid judgment and action value." They don't explain the industry, but rather identify opportunities: airdrop routes, on-chain behavior, narrative starting points, sentiment inflection points, short-term trading ranges, task changes, contract dynamics, and ecosystem hotspots. The content of these KOLs is usually not in-depth analysis, but rather action suggestions, execution strategies, operational tips, or even a clear path of "what to do and when." The more chaotic the industry, the more significant the value of these KOLs, because they handle the first half of the screening, judgment, and decision-making for others. The monetization structure for this route is also completely different. The monetization of trader-type KOLs is typically highly correlated with traffic: user communities, membership services, trading strategy sharing, task path organization, airdrop tools, collaborative AMAs, and even execution-related collaborations on certain projects. The faster the pace, the larger the scale; however, business opportunities are also more unstable, as all revenue is tied to "whether the market is hot and whether there are many opportunities." During an uptrend, these KOLs easily gain followers and monetize; but during a market downturn, they quickly enter a phase of "no content to publish," experiencing emotional costs and psychological pressure that other types of KOLs find difficult to endure. For Chinese users, the value of trader-type KOLs is more direct: "guiding, saving time, and reducing trial and error." The Chinese ecosystem naturally suffers from information lag, inconsistent task paths, and more complex on-chain conditions; many users treat these KOLs as "navigation systems one to three steps ahead." However, if you have a Chinese-speaking background, the additional difficulty of this path is more pronounced than that of the research path. The lag in English information is only the most superficial obstacle; deeper obstacles include time zone differences, the pace of updates for overseas tasks, and the inability to smoothly participate in key discussion platforms. This forces you to fill in many gaps in the information chain that others don't need to. This path faces an additional layer of practical limitations in the Chinese context. Some trading-related expressions are not as free in the domestic environment as they are overseas, especially content that is easily misinterpreted as "directive advice" or "driving trading." Therefore, when pursuing a trader's path, you need to be more careful in handling the boundaries of expression related to your judgment, direction, and collaborations. Before your influence grows, you need to clearly understand what you can say and what expressions are unsuitable, avoiding being caught off guard by inappropriate wording during the fastest-paced period. The trader path presents a more practical problem: as long as the content is related to trading, your judgment will directly influence the user's financial decisions. Regardless of your intention to "guide," users will instinctively see you as the primary responsible party if losses occur. This psychological mechanism exists in all markets, but Web3 is faster-paced, more volatile, and provides more direct feedback. When choosing this path, you must clearly define your expression, boundaries, and pace to avoid being drawn into the user's emotions and outcomes. Ultimately, choosing the trader path boils down to whether you can find a sustainable rhythm that balances speed, judgment, and pressure. Otherwise, this path will exhaust you faster than any other direction. In conclusion, regardless of which path you choose, being a KOL is never a replicable process, but rather the result of long-term investment. It requires consistent expression, the ability to face public scrutiny, and the ability to maintain your judgment across different timeframes. Research-oriented and trader-oriented paths seem like two completely different paths, but those who truly succeed in the long run are often not those who chose the right direction, but those who have created lasting value in their chosen field. If you're considering starting, Portal Labs hopes this article only shows you the "hurdles" and "forks in the road." Ultimately, the real key is whether you're willing to invest the time and attention to a rhythm you can stick to long-term. You can find your direction gradually, but you must control your own rhythm.