The "counter-consensus" choice of an eight-year-old exchange: Why give up easy profits and not treat trading as the end goal?

Author: momo, ChainCatcher

Many crypto builders, after going through several cycles, seem to have reached a “consensus”: no matter what you initially set out to do, in the end, it’s often better to focus on trading.

Take the former NFT leader OpenSea as an example; its transformation path is quite typical. When the NFT market cooled and revenue shrank to around $3 million per month, OpenSea pivoted in October 2025, becoming a comprehensive platform where anything can be traded, supporting tokens and memecoins across 22 chains.

As a result, in the first month after the pivot, trading volume surged to $2.6 billion, with nearly 90% coming from token trading. CEO Devin Finzer’s remark that “you can’t fight the trend” sounds like going with the flow, but also reveals a sense of helplessness and compromise.

OpenSea is not an exception. Looking back at this bull cycle, trading memecoins became a “lifeline” for many projects. In a16z’s January report, “2 notes for crypto builders in 2026,” partner Arianna Simpson openly states that this trend is accelerating: almost every successful crypto company has shifted or is shifting toward trading activities.

While focusing on trading for revenue is understandable, then what? This has evolved into a kind of “marshmallow experiment” for the crypto industry: pursuing short-term satisfaction often comes at the cost of product depth.

As Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin recently pointed out in a discussion on decentralized social: if the industry merely packs a speculative token into a product and claims to be “innovative,” it’s just creating corporate garbage.

If all innovation ends up just to increase turnover rate, what can individuals, projects, and the industry really leave behind for this era?

Fortunately, as the industry begins to reflect collectively, divergences are emerging. Amid the trend of “everyone moving toward trading,” some veteran platforms like CoinW are exploring whether there’s a longer-term, more effective path.

Divergence in Industry Dilemmas

Why is early entry into trading and solely doing trading unsustainable? Friend.tech and Pump.fun, two former star products, might provide some answers.

Friend.tech, once a top SocialFi platform, succeeded and failed through trading. It aimed to create social connections but pivoted directly to trading, making each KOL a tradable asset, with prices set by buy-sell dynamics and platform commissions. This model led to rapid growth, soaring fees, and even a record daily revenue surpassing Ethereum within a month. But once speculation faded, the social relationships had no intrinsic value, leaving no lasting user base. Friend.tech ultimately failed.

Pump.fun pushed the trading-centric model to the extreme. The rise of memecoins allowed platforms like Pump.fun to earn huge profits. But most trades are zero-sum; when the market turns bearish, trading volume can drop by 90% compared to its peak.

The question remains: how to find a more sustainable long-term scenario or a second growth curve? The answer is still elusive.

For the entire industry, this “trade-first” approach only fosters over-reliance on short-term gains, leading to homogenized competition and difficulty in cultivating genuine long-term value. This is a key reason why this cycle’s crypto industry has been criticized for lacking innovation.

But if trading alone isn’t the only path, where are the new opportunities?

Some different attempts are emerging. This path doesn’t deny trading but redefines its role: making trading not the end goal, but an entry point to a richer participation ecosystem. In other words, users shouldn’t only speculate on the platform; they should also generate value through more “consumption” and participation scenarios.

This concept is quite understandable when looking at traditional sectors. Any sustainable business model must allow users to naturally create value through daily use, participation, or consumption, enabling platforms to build long-term relationships and ecological resources.

However, this path is likely to be difficult. It requires platforms to have sufficient capital and patience—first survive, then develop slow-to-yield initiatives like developer cultivation, community management, or connecting to real-world scenarios.

Currently, you can see that such adjustments are not mainstream but are mainly attempted by established projects with a stable user base and solid operations. For example, CoinW, an old exchange with millions of users and stable daily trading volume, has enough capital flow to support building a long-term, valuable ecosystem that may take time to show results.

The Logic Behind the “Counter-Consensus” Choice

For some crypto projects, solely focusing on trading poses long-term survival issues. But for a platform like CoinW, which can earn steadily from transaction fees, why insist on doing slower, more complex things? Looking into CoinW’s public discussions and strategy offers some clues.

It’s likely related to the background of the CoinW team. Its board member Omar Al Yousif has extensive experience in traditional finance and investment, currently serving as Vice Chairman of 7-E Emirates Holding and a partner at 10X Capital.

He has mentioned repeatedly—both internally and publicly—that the rush to trade and homogenous competition is the old way of traditional finance: when all players chase the same metrics, the result is often just a pile of trivialities. It may seem prosperous but actually exhausts long-term value.

For platforms like CoinW, fostering ecosystem development isn’t just about leveraging their stable foundation; it’s a strategic choice driven by “long-term thinking”: relying solely on trading will be hard to sustain competitive advantage in the next cycle. Early deployment into non-trading value scenarios can help secure a first-mover advantage amid industry segmentation.

So how to implement value beyond trading? CoinW announced a full-stack upgrade at its 8th anniversary, which can be summarized as focusing on two strategies: “internal circulation” and “external circulation.”

1. Internal Circulation: Making it easier for users to stay

Internal circulation refers to redesigning the user’s “staying path” within the platform: not assuming users will repeatedly trade the same assets, but extending their effective engagement time.

For example, as a trader, most of us start with familiar spot and futures trading. But many don’t just want to “make more trades”; they also want to participate in other on-chain activities beyond market movements. CoinW aims to meet this demand without cutting it off.

Under a unified account system, users no longer need separate wallets or Gas management to try more features:

• On GemW, users can explore on-chain assets directly, with low costs and barriers.
• On DeriW, which also offers perpetual trading, the on-chain structure is more transparent, and zero Gas design encourages trying different strategies.
• On PropW, trading is no longer just about profit and loss; users’ trading skills can be regarded as a “skill,” supported by platform funds, changing the way they participate.

In the short term, this design may not immediately boost trading volume, but a clear effect is that users won’t leave just because the market cools. When trading opportunities decrease, other participation methods can retain attention; when new assets or features emerge, they can be naturally integrated.

The result is a lower psychological barrier for users to explore new things, longer platform stay, and increased engagement. From this perspective, internal circulation isn’t about forcing users to “trade more,” but about making it easier for them to stay.

2. External Circulation: Moving beyond pure trading and crypto scenarios

External circulation means actively connecting the platform to a broader industry ecosystem. By linking externally, CoinW involves users and the platform in project growth and resource allocation, rather than just competing in trading.

Practically, CoinW doesn’t equate ecosystem cooperation with listing or traffic swaps. Instead, it builds deeper partnerships with projects with long-term potential—offering real user access, liquidity, and infrastructure support—so projects become part of a long-term ecosystem, not just one-off trading targets.

This approach is reflected in initiatives like the flagship event WConnect, which facilitates cross-ecosystem dialogue among exchanges, developers, and projects; and ongoing participation in regional industry events like Coinfest Asia, embedding the platform into a broader global crypto network—not just trading infrastructure.

For users, this shifts the logic: no longer just trading the same assets repeatedly, but engaging early in projects, using products, participating in mechanisms, and establishing ongoing relationships—moving participation forward in time.

CoinW is also trying to bring crypto assets into broader social contexts. For example, partnering with La Liga, East Asian Football Championships, and sponsoring events like TAIWAN GQ Style Fest, making crypto more tangible in public scenes.

These external actions don’t aim for short-term trading volume growth but change the platform’s role—from a simple matchmaker to a hub connecting projects, users, and real-world scenarios. In an industry long dominated by trading logic, this choice may not show immediate results but provides a foundation for long-term competitiveness.

Conclusion

Looking back, these industry divergences are hard to quantify with just a few data points. But they at least reflect different understandings of the industry’s long-term future.

As trading becomes more standardized, true differentiation may not come from higher-frequency matching but from whether a platform is willing to reserve space for value beyond trading. CoinW’s approach is an attempt based on this judgment.

CoinW’s 8th anniversary theme, “Trot On To Infinity,” is less a slogan than a stance: it doesn’t specify an endpoint but accepts that this is a long-distance race requiring patience and continuous course correction.

In a highly utilitarian market environment, this path may not be the most clever, but it offers a possibility: when the tide recedes, what sustains a platform’s growth might not be greater “fee extraction” but whether it is truly rooted in a long-term valuable ecosystem.

Disclaimer:

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute investment or legal advice. The services or products mentioned may not be available in all regions. Crypto asset trading involves high risk; please fully understand the risks before participating.