In the ever-evolving world of cryptocurrency, where decentralization promises equality, a stark reality often emerges: a class divide that favors the influential over the everyday user. A recent tweet from crypto enthusiast Hitesh Malviya (@hmalviya9) has struck a chord, highlighting how projects reward big social media personalities with incentives—even if they've never truly engaged—while loyal users are left empty-handed. This not only feels unfair but also skews usage metrics that projects then leverage to attract more investment.

The Viral Tweet Sparking Debate

Here's what Malviya posted on X (formerly Twitter):

There’s no place for class divide in a shared economy. Yet in crypto, it’s clear as day - people with big social presence earn more incentives from projects they never even used, while real users get nothing. The worst part is that inflated usage metrics from those same users are then used to raise more funds.

This sentiment quickly garnered likes, replies, and quotes, with many echoing the frustration. One reply pointed to Monad, a high-performance blockchain project, whose recent MON airdrop faced backlash for seemingly prioritizing influencers and excluding active testnet participants or traders on related platforms like Hyperliquid. Critics argued that Monad's allocation rules sidelined the community that helped build hype, opting instead for "sophisticated" distributions that rewarded clout over contribution.

Breaking Down the Class Divide in Crypto

At its core, this issue boils down to incentives in crypto projects. Incentives often come in the form of airdrops—free token distributions to encourage participation—or partnerships with influencers for promotion. In a shared economy like blockchain, where everyone should theoretically have equal access, this creates a hierarchy:

• Influencers with Massive Followings: They get tokens, sponsorships, or exclusive perks simply for tweeting or posting about a project. Their reach generates buzz, but it's often superficial—no real usage or testing involved.

• Real Users and Builders: These are the folks grinding away, using apps, providing liquidity, or farming points in hopes of rewards. Yet, they frequently miss out because criteria favor "elite" metrics like social proof over on-chain activity.

The kicker? Projects use the inflated stats from influencer-driven hype—think spiked transaction volumes or user counts—to pitch to venture capitalists. This cycle perpetuates inequality, as fresh funds flow back into marketing budgets that again prioritize big names.

How This Plays Out in the Meme Token Space

Meme tokens, built on humor, virality, and community, are particularly susceptible to this divide. Unlike utility-focused projects, meme coins thrive on hype, making influencers kingmakers. But this often leads to exploitation:

• Pump-and-Dump Schemes: Influencers shill a token to their followers, driving up prices, only to sell off their holdings for quick profits. A 2025 study on meme coin ecosystems highlighted how insiders, including promoters, engage in these tactics, leaving retail investors holding worthless bags.

• Celebrity Meme Coin Scandals: Take the Hawk Tuah girl saga. Hailey Welch, the viral sensation, was linked to a meme coin that crashed shortly after launch in late 2024. Investors sued, alleging it was an unregistered security and a scam. Welch claimed she was misled, but the controversy underscored how influencers can ignite (and extinguish) tokens without skin in the game.

• Other High-Profile Cases: Celebrities like Caitlyn Jenner and Jason Derulo faced accusations in 2025 of promoting Solana-based meme coins that turned out to be rug pulls—where developers abandon the project after raising funds. Andrew Tate's involvement in manipulative meme coin promotions drew scrutiny from crypto investigators, who exposed coordinated pumps benefiting insiders.

In meme token launches on platforms like Pump.fun, social presence often dictates success. A token backed by a big influencer can hit million-dollar market caps overnight, based on fabricated hype rather than genuine community engagement. Real users, who buy in hoping for moonshots, end up funding the next influencer payout.

The Broader Impact on Blockchain Adoption

This class divide isn't just unfair—it's detrimental to the industry's growth. When projects prioritize short-term hype over sustainable rewards, trust erodes. Users feel like farmers in a system rigged against them, leading to burnout and reduced participation. For meme tokens, which rely on grassroots momentum, alienating the base can kill virality.

Projects like Monad faced community outrage over their airdrop, with users calling out hypocrisy in using testnet data for fundraising while capping rewards at a small elite group. Similar grumblings echo in meme communities, where airdrops or giveaways often go to "whales" or connected insiders.

Toward a Fairer Crypto Ecosystem

So, what's the fix? Some suggest on-chain verifiable rewards, where incentives tie directly to usage metrics like transaction history or holding periods, bypassing social clout. DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations) could democratize decisions, letting communities vote on distributions. Transparency in fundraising—disclosing how metrics are gathered and used—would also help.

As Malviya's tweet reminds us, crypto's promise is a shared economy without barriers. To realize that, projects must reward the hands that build, not just the voices that shout. In the meme token world, where fun meets finance, bridging this divide could unlock even greater innovation and inclusivity.

For more insights on meme token trends and fair practices, stay tuned to Meme Insider. What's your take on this divide? Drop a comment below!