The influence economy of crypto Twitter: How a small number of accounts control the narrative

Author: rosie, Crypto KOL; Compiler: Felix, PANews

The Crypto Twitter Community (CT) claims to be the most decentralized information network in the financial sector. They call it "permissionless discussion". Anyone can share alpha, anyone can build their own audience, and anyone can influence the conversation.

But the reality is that about 100 accounts control how millions of people think about cryptocurrencies, which projects get attention, and where the money flows. This is the most centralized influence economy in the guise of grassroots community building.

This complex influence mechanism is even envied by traditional media executives.

The core circle that manipulates the market

CT is not a large dialogue platform, but a series of concentric circles, with influence radiating outward from the center and disproportionate.

First Tier: Kingmakers (5-10 accounts). These accounts don’t just have followers, they have network effects. Once they tweet, hundreds of other accounts retweet within minutes. Their casual mentions can drive up token prices, their criticisms can destroy projects, and their endorsements can instantly give projects legitimacy.

When tweets at this level mention a project, it not only brings interaction, but also attracts institutional attention, venture capital interest, and retail FOMO.

Tier 2: Amplifiers (20-30 accounts). These accounts turn Tier 1 tweets into trending topics. They quote-retweet, add commentary, and ensure the message reaches their specific communities, such as venture capital partners, well-known builders, ecosystem leaders.

Tier 3: Echo Chambers (70-75 accounts). Mid-tier influencers who repeat Tier 1 and Tier 2 ideas to their own audiences. They rarely bring new ideas but are critical in amplifying the narrative. Their job is to make Tier 1 ideas look like community consensus.

Everyone else: The audience. Digest and respond to what the top 100 have already determined is worth discussing.

How narratives actually spread

The process is not random – it’s predictable:

Step 1: Seeding

Tier 1 accounts share ideas, insights, or findings. This can be true alpha or strategic outreach.

Step 2: Amplification

Tier 2 accounts quote and retweet within 1-3 hours, adding their own interpretation. This creates the illusion of independent discovery.

Step 3: Validation

Tier 3 accounts chime in with supporting evidence, creating the social proof that “all the smart people agree.”

Step 4: Cascading Effect

Retail accounts share fragments of the narrative, often misinterpreting key details but spreading the core message.

Step 5: Institutionalization

Crypto media writes articles citing “Crypto Twitter Sentiment” and the narrative becomes accepted fact.

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

The Economics Behind Influence

CT’s influence is more than just prestige — it’s a sophisticated business model:

Direct monetization:

• Paid promotion disguised as stumbleupon

• “Advisory” positions in projects they mentioned in their tweets

• left;">Speaking fees at conferences and events

• Newsletter sponsorships and premium content

Indirect value capture:

• Early access to project information and tokens

• Favorable allocations in funding rounds

• Networking with Tier 1 VCs and founders

• Board positions and equity opportunities

Portfolio pull: Many top accounts are angel investors or advisors to crypto projects.

Gatekeeping

CT’s concentration of influence creates systemic biases:

Geographic bias: Most Tier 1 accounts are based in the US, creating a US-centric global tech narrative.

Network bias: Projects with existing connections to influential accounts receive disproportionate attention, regardless of their technical merit.

Wealth bias: Accounts with existing crypto wealth are able to participate in exclusive deals, creating a compounding advantage.

Language bias: Non-English projects and communities are systematically undervalued.

Professional bias: Financial engineering gets more attention than technical innovation because finance people are better at self-promotion.

What content is promoted and what is ignored

Analyzing CT trends can clearly reveal the pattern of choosing content to promote:

Content that is heavily promoted:

• New L1 blockchains (especially EVM-compatible)

• DeFi protocols with novel token mechanisms

• Anything tagged with "infrastructure" or "extensions"

• Projects built for developers

Content that is systematically ignored:

• New L1 blockchains (especially EVM-compatible)

• DeFi protocols with novel token mechanisms

• Anything tagged with "infrastructure" or "extensions"

• Projects built for developers

Content that is systematically ignored: Projects without tokens or venture capital backing

The result is a feedback loop in which the development of cryptocurrencies is focused on how to attract the attention of CT users rather than truly advancing the technology.

The illusion of decentralized speech

CT presents itself as being radically different from traditional media, but its power dynamics are strikingly similar:

Traditional media: a handful of editors decide what is worth reporting, journalists amplify those decisions, and audiences digest the filtered information.

Crypto Twitter: A handful of tier-1 accounts decide which projects are worth following, tier-2/tier-3 accounts amplify those decisions, and audiences digest the filtered information.

The main difference is that CT’s influence economy is less transparent in terms of power structures and financial incentives.

Downstream Impacts

Tangible consequences of CT’s concentration of influence:

Capital allocation: VCs pay attention to CT sentiment when making investment decisions. Hot projects get meetings, cold projects are ignored.

Developer attention: What projects builders choose to work on are based in part on what projects they see promoted in their social feeds.

Retail investor behavior: Millions of people make financial decisions based on narratives from 100 accounts with undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Media Coverage: Crypto journalists use Twitter sentiment as a measure of importance, amplifying the choices of the influence economy.

Breaking the Cycle

Here are some observations to cope with this reality:

For builders: Understand that technical excellence without a narrative means obscurity. Either learn to play the influence game or find allies willing to help.

For investors: Public opinion on CT is a lagging indicator of the opinions of first-tier accounts, not true market sentiment. By the time something is "hot," you're already too late.

For users: Follow accounts that consistently share different viewpoints and deep technical analysis, rather than accounts that simply echo mainstream views and do paid promotion.

For the entire ecosystem: recognize that the concentration of influence on CT undermines efforts toward decentralization.

Conclusion

There is nothing wrong with CT — it is working exactly as designed.

The problem is not the existence of influence networks (they will always exist) — it’s the pretending that CT represents an organic, decentralized discussion, when in reality it is a complex influence economy with concentrated power and undisclosed economic incentives.