Every month at @GREEND0TS we run small audits of ongoing KOL campaigns on X – to understand what other teams are doing and to track which strategies and post formats actually work.
We track dozens of campaigns every month. Usually I just take notes.
But since the marketing reality on X has changed with paid partnership tags, I decided it’s time to show what’s going wrong with many recent campaigns.
Sorry, @Starknet — I picked you for this case study.
Before we start: I have nothing against Starknet.
They still have strong tech.
And despite all the FUD and scepticism after the airdrop and post-TGE phase, the team keeps shipping and building products.
That deserves respect.
Today I’m only looking at one thing: marketing strategy.
And Starknet is simply an illustrative example.
How they structured their ad campaign
Recently Starknet launched strkBTC [₿] and activated a number of creators to amplify the announcement.
Very classic setup:
Announcement with a promo video
QTs coming from KOLs within the next 12–48 hours
Follow-up posts explaining why the product is cool
The tricky part is that even this activation — which happened in late February — already included disclosures from a few creators who wanted to follow X policies properly.
And once those appear, the pattern becomes very easy to spot.
I intentionally cropped the screenshots to keep the participating creators anonymous.
CT loves turning everything into a hate show without reading the context. I’d rather avoid that.
This post is not about disclosures.
It’s about strategy.
Another activation happened around a different Starknet announcement on February 10.
Exactly the same playbook.
Announcement with video → amplification through KOL QTs.
Anything else?
Yes.
A few long-form posts plus some activation on Korean CT.
And that’s pretty much it.
Important: I don’t know who manages this campaign and whether an agency is involved.
I’m simply giving feedback as a marketer looking at the results from the outside.
And one thing stands out immediately: The curation of creators for announcement amplification is quite weak.
X is essentially an awareness layer.
Creator amplification on X should ideally lead to:
more discussions about the brand
more independent creator posts
more community-generated content
stronger ecosystem activation
Is that what we’re seeing?
Not really.
If you apply simple filters on X to check the top posts mentioning Starknet in February, the results are quite telling.
The top mention is actually this post from Warhol:
Overall, there are just over 100 standalone posts mentioning Starknet that received more than 10 likes during the month.
Which is… not a lot for a major L2 ecosystem.
Some of the top organic mentions include:
@MookieNFT on token unlocks – https://x.com/MookieNFT/status/2020866918601638294 (10K views)
@DeFi_Warhol on crypto interns – https://x.com/Defi_Warhol/status/2026666253637824808 (16K views)
@DeFi_Warhol’s L2 tier list – https://x.com/Defi_Warhol/status/2020885665492463969 (30K views)
@santimentfeed ranking L2s by dev activity – https://x.com/santimentfeed/status/2019888222235480402 (50K views)
@mztacat's “big four” tweet – https://x.com/mztacat/status/2021856108634087877 (11K views)
And that’s roughly the full month result on X for Starknet mentions.
Which brings us to a bigger point.
This is not only about Starknet.
It’s about how classic Web3 marketing flywheels are slowly breaking on X.
Why this classic ad flywheel is getting even worse
For years the default Web3 marketing playbook looked like this:
Announcement
↓
KOL amplification
↓
Community discussion
It worked when timelines were less saturated, narratives helped, and when most promotions were not clearly visible as paid.
But a few things changed.
And they changed fast.
1. Paid disclosures killed stealth amplification
Once creators started adding disclosures, the pattern became obvious.
You see the announcement.
Then 5–10 QTs appear in the next 24 hours.
All with similar talking points.
People recognise the structure instantly.
Instead of triggering discussion, it signals “this is an ad campaign.”
And ads rarely spark debate on CT. They get scrolled past.
2. KOL cascades are now extremely easy to detect
CT has matured. People know how marketing works.
When the same group of creators quote the same announcement with slightly different phrasing, the timeline reads it as a coordinated push.
Once the campaign becomes visible as a campaign, engagement drops.
Because the audience switches from curiosity mode → ad filtering mode.
3. X rewards narratives, not announcements
X is not a distribution channel.
It’s a narrative layer.
Announcements rarely trend unless they trigger:
debates
memes
hot takes
disagreements
or creator competition
Without those dynamics, amplification just produces temporary reach, not mindshare.
Which brings us to the bigger point.
Why this strategy fails on X in 2026
The issue is not Starknet specifically.
It’s the sequence of marketing actions.
Most teams still start with the announcement.
But on X the order is now reversed.
Old structure:
Announcement
↓
Amplification
↓
Discussion
New structure (one of them, actually):
Narrative
↓
Creator debate
↓
Community content
↓
Announcement
The announcement becomes the confirmation moment, not the starting point.
If you skip the narrative phase, amplification has nothing to attach to.
Which is exactly what we’re seeing in most campaigns today – even with a decent budget.
How I’d design this campaign for Starknet
Let’s start with reality: Starknet has baggage.
The airdrop phase created a lot of FUD and scepticism.
You can’t fix that with explainers and promo videos.
You fix it by owning the conversation.
Different goals require different campaign structures.
> If the goal is mindshare
Lean into the controversy.
Don’t try to silence critics.
Design narratives that make people argue.
Examples:
“Which L2 actually wins BTCfi?”
“Ethereum L2s vs Bitcoin L2s.”
“Top 5 ecosystems for BTCfi builders.”
Sponsor tier lists.
Sponsor comparison posts.
Sponsor debates.
Half the timeline will defend Starknet.
Half will attack it.
But (!) both sides increase visibility.
Drama is not always bad marketing.
Unnoticed marketing is worse.
> If the goal is narrative dominance
Then stop pushing long explainers.
Very few people read them.
Instead:
visual infographics
ecosystem maps
competitive comparisons
short frameworks creators can reuse
Content that creators can remix is far more powerful than content they can only quote.
The goal is not one good post.
The goal is dozens of derivative posts.
That’s how narratives spread.
> If the goal is attracting builders
Then remember this: Builder acquisition is B2B.
Random explainers on X are not how you onboard developers.
What X should do is:
build perceived momentum
create ecosystem prestige
show that builders are already winning there
Once that narrative exists, onboarding becomes much easier.
Because builders follow momentum.
The real takeaway
The classic model of: announce → amplify is slowly dying on X.
The new model looks more like this: design narrative → activate creators → trigger debate → let the community run with it.
Announcements still matter.
But they no longer start the story.
They close it.
If people find this breakdown useful, I might start sharing more campaign analyses like this from time to time.
At @GREEND0TS we spend a lot of time studying how narratives actually move on CT.
The patterns are becoming pretty interesting.
