At a cryptocurrency conference in Hong Kong, a foreign representative wearing a white T-shirt printed with "Foreigners on Stage" first took photos at the booth, then gave a speech on stage, and even posed for pictures with several industry influencers. The short video quickly went viral on social media, with polarized comments: one side sees it as a signal of the project going global, while the other points to it as mere "marketing gimmick." For ordinary users, such scenes resemble both an "entry signal" and an "emotional trap."
Why does this model repeatedly prove effective? Because it precisely hits the "fast track" of attention economics—amidst a crowded information flow, foreign faces, prominent positions at the venue, English speeches, and media coverage together form a symbolic system where "internationalization equals credibility." For project parties, when capital, ecosystem, and user growth all need to go overseas, an external expression that is "visible, understandable, and presentable" often crosses language and cultural barriers more easily than a heavy technical white paper.
This is not a new phenomenon. From the ICO era to the NFT craze, and now to on-chain finance and RWA narratives, East Asian projects have made global conference and social agendas a "standard." Foreign representative services have evolved from "temporary appearances" to "full-process outsourcing": refining drafts, creating English websites, communicating with overseas media, organizing roadshow agendas, and even helping teams simulate English Q&A sessions.
In other words, "being on stage" meets the project's urgent need to "be seen," while also satisfying the market's psychological desire to "be persuaded." The issue has never been about "whether there is a stage," but rather "whether there are deliverable facts behind the stage." When the internationalization illusion created by the camera matches real products, compliance, fund custody, and user experience, the stage becomes a bridge; once disconnected, it becomes a filter that amplifies erroneous prices and expectations, ultimately shifting the cost to the most vulnerable participants—ordinary users.
Why do users get swayed by such scenes? Behavioral finance provides an answer: the combination of authority preference, herd effect, and halo effect leads people to subconsciously equate "looking international" with "having passed international due diligence." Busy investors are more likely to rely on heuristic decision-making, treating "co-starring individuals," "conference level," and "volume of English media citations" as proxy variables for quality.
The narrative of being "on stage" often aligns with this psychology, employing a "speech transfer" translation strategy: simplifying complex on-chain mechanisms into universal benefit expressions—"cross-border is cheaper," "compliance bridge is built," "overseas capital is recognized." It bypasses intricate technical details and cumbersome compliance prerequisites, covering "uncertainties in the process" with "certain benefits."
Social media dissemination further amplifies this smooth narrative: the rhythm of short videos, the acceleration of clickbait titles, and the social proof of "everyone is watching" in communities push attention toward an emotional binary—"either get on board now or miss out." At this moment, what is most likely to slip is not cognition, but discipline.
To break the deadlock, users need a set of "anti-induction" simplified frameworks to turn feelings back into facts and restore visuals to processes. The first measure is called "information density": after being on stage, did you receive clear answers about what the product has delivered, what the next steps are, and when they will be completed? The second measure is called "verifiability": can the official website, LinkedIn, GitHub, auditing agencies, partner official accounts, on-chain addresses, PoR (Proof of Reserves), and risk control terms mutually verify each other through independent channels? The third measure is called "risk pricing": when expectations are raised, does the project simultaneously provide governance constraints, fund custody arrangements, progress bets, and failure guarantees; if there are only stories without responsibilities, the premium should quickly revert to rational ranges.
Putting these three measures into practice involves four small tasks: set a 24-hour cooling-off period for yourself; cross-verify key facts using three independent sources; monitor the version numbers and timestamps of contract addresses and audit reports; before any strong narrative of "the strongest in the field" or "the only solution," first ask, "If it fails, who will be responsible, how will they be responsible, and when will they be responsible?"
Zooming out, the excitement of "foreigners on stage" actually reveals three long-term user-friendly signals. The first is that the global supply-demand matching is becoming "real." In the past, many projects only circulated within local ecosystems; now, to attract cross-border funds, compliant collaborations, and broader users, they are willing to invest time and costs for "international expression," indicating that quality resources are meeting a wider range of users. Successful players will serve the market in a more transparent manner.
The second signal is the professionalization of industry infrastructure. The previous situation where "capable people write code, and no one manages external communication" is changing. PR, public relations, legal, auditing, proof of reserves, and risk control terms are gradually being integrated into daily project operations. Users can compare advantages and disadvantages in more standardized disclosures, systematically reducing information asymmetry.
The third signal is the bidirectional push of regulation and market education. As compliance frameworks are refined in various regions—such as unified rules for regional cryptocurrency asset issuance and services, financial centers exploring compliance paths for stablecoins and payments, and some countries allowing local fiat-denominated stablecoins—the channels for cross-border compliance and fund regularization are increasing. If projects want to access these channels, they must upgrade "storytelling" to "building trust."
An important ecological change is also taking shape: the cryptocurrency "service industry" is emerging. Foreign representative services are just one aspect of this, while more professional institutions (international PR, event companies, compliance consultants, third-party auditing, on-chain data services, custody, and multi-signature solutions) will systematically enhance information symmetry, elevating users from "watching the excitement" to "understanding the nuances."
In the short term, this will create more noise and debate; in the medium to long term, it will turn "verifiable" into an entry ticket and "responsibility to users" into a keyword. For ordinary users, this is a tangible benefit: the number of comparable facts is increasing, project commitments are becoming more "on-chain," and compliance paths are becoming clearer. Good projects will be easier to identify, while bad projects will find it harder to hide behind filters.
Ultimately, the decisive power remains in the hands of users. Rather than fearing "missing out on the market brought by a stage," it is better to establish a repeatable verification process, ensuring that each action aligns with your risk control curve. The first step is to create a "fact checklist," collecting only verifiable information: contract addresses, token economics, whether the smart contract is open-source, the last submission time, whether there is third-party auditing, whether there is PoR or equivalent custody disclosure, whether partners have synchronized releases on their official channels, and whether the founders and executives' past projects and failures are verifiable. Try to cross-verify using independent sources (on-chain browsers, auditing agency websites, partner official websites, regulatory registration databases, code hosting platform submission records).
The second step is to create a "process map," breaking down slogans into phased delivery points: testnet → mainnet, whitelist → public testing, latest delivery time for major functions, key milestones for compliance applications, and potential failure points. Bind each milestone to a clear responsible person and timeline; any "vision" that cannot be bound should be temporarily classified as "narrative."
The third step is to establish "fund and governance consensus." Check for multi-signature and custody arrangements, whether funds are disbursed in phases with milestone acceptance, how the community and investors participate in governance, how emergency pause rights are constrained, and how funds and tokens are handled in extreme cases. These directly determine the tail risks you bear.
The fourth step is to establish "price and position discipline." Clearly define your entry threshold, reduction rules, and stop-loss line, and isolate them from emotions: set a 24-hour cooling-off period for any "heavyweight stage," "strong co-starring," or "intensive media coverage." Embed public tools into your daily routine: use on-chain browsers to check contracts and large transfers, use code hosting platforms to monitor submission frequency and contributors, use third-party audits and reserve disclosures to assess safety and qualifications, and use authoritative media and partner official websites for mutual endorsement; if necessary, use keyword searches to check the project's history of "negatives/controversies/vulnerabilities/penalties."
Finally, a reminder: being on stage is not a sin, nor is packaging. The key lies in whether "looking correct" can be realized as "on-time delivery and continuous responsibility" with verifiable facts. The next time you see a dazzling stage, consider asking three questions—am I receiving real and scarce information, or repetitive and cheap emotions? Can this information support the current risk pricing? If I shift my focus away, would I still be willing to hold? When your answers consistently withstand these three questions, you have returned the filter to the lens and retained rationality in your hands.
Related: The Federal Reserve's "third mission" may lead to the depreciation of the dollar, boosting Bitcoin (BTC).
Original article: “Behind the Hype of Foreign Endorsements: When International Faces Meet Retail Wallets, How Should Users Decide?”
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
