Why an 8-Yuan App Beats Billion-Dollar Shitcoins: A Web2 vs Web3 Reality Check

Three post-95s developers spent just 1,000 yuan and less than a month to build an app called “Dead or Not.” It hit the top of Apple’s paid download chart on January 8th at 8 yuan per copy. Fast forward several weeks, and the app now commands a 10 million yuan valuation—a ten-thousand-fold return on investment. Meanwhile, in the crypto world, projects with zero revenue and zero actual users were recently valued at 1 billion USD. Today, those same projects are worth 16 million USD, having lost 99% of their peak value. The contrast couldn’t be starker. One is built on real users paying real money. The other is built on narrative. One succeeded. The other imploded.

A Product Born From Internet Culture

The app’s core premise is almost absurdly simple: open it daily, check in, and prove you’re alive. Miss two consecutive days, and the system automatically notifies your emergency contact. That’s the entire feature set.

The inspiration came from a years-old viral meme. Somewhere online, someone posed the question: What app would everyone need and definitely download? One highly upvoted answer was “Dead or Not.” Founder Mr. Guo and his team spotted the opportunity, checked the trademark registry, and discovered no one had claimed it. Within weeks, they had a functioning app.

The timing proved crucial. China’s solo-living population exceeded 120 million people in 2024, with projections reaching 150 to 200 million by 2030. These individuals scattered across Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen face a real and pressing anxiety: if something happens to them at home, how long until someone notices? For 8 yuan, they purchased not just an app, but confirmation that someone—anyone—knows they’re still alive.

The strategy worked. Paid downloads surged 200-fold in recent days, with investors lining up. Mr. Guo planned to sell 10% of shares for 1 million yuan, valuing the entire company at 10 million yuan.

When Copycats Can’t Copy Culture

Less than 24 hours after “Dead or Not” launched, competitors arrived. An app named “Alive or Not” appeared on the App Store offering identical functionality for free. Yet it gained no traction.

Mr. Guo remained unfazed. He understood what most crypto projects never grasp: the product’s true value isn’t technical complexity or features—it’s the cultural insight baked into the name itself. You can clone the mechanics, but you cannot clone the meme. Three characters—“Dead or Not”—became the asset. A competitor calling itself “Solo Living Safety Guardian” would have disappeared into obscurity. The name carries the entire brand.

The Shitcoin Paradox: Why Narrative Beats Reality

Here’s where things get uncomfortable. Fuel Network, a crypto project building a “modular blockchain execution layer,” was valued at 1 billion USD (roughly 700 million RMB) by venture capital firms—700 times the valuation of “Dead or Not.” What did Fuel Network possess? A whitepaper. A roadmap. Institutional backing. Founder interviews at major conferences.

What did it lack? Users. Revenue. Actual adoption.

Today, Fuel Network trades at approximately 16 million USD—a 99% collapse from its peak.

This isn’t a condemnation of all crypto projects. It’s an observation about how the industry operates. In crypto, a project can have zero users, generate zero revenue, solve zero real problems—and still command a 1-billion-USD valuation. The crypto valuation thesis is elegantly simple: narrative matters. Tokenomics matter. FDV (fully diluted valuation) matters. Whether anyone actually uses the product? That’s an afterthought.

Now imagine pitching “Dead or Not” to crypto investors. You’d hear: We have real users. Real payments. Real problem-solving. The immediate response: What’s the narrative? What’s the token economics? What’s the FDV? You answer: No token. Just an app. 8 yuan per download. They reply: Then why should I invest?

This is not hyperbole. This is the crypto system.

Two Opposing Philosophies: Users First vs. Hype First

The fundamental divide isn’t technical. It’s philosophical.

One model: Value the narrative, launch the token, promise the vision, secure early investor exits, and hope adoption follows.

The other model: Build the product, acquire real users, generate actual revenue, and let valuation follow.

If “Dead or Not” had instead launched a token, created a “Loneliness Blockchain,” and pitched itself as a gateway to the “Global Loneliness Economy,” its valuation could easily multiply tenfold. Venture capitalists would have competed to invest. But here’s the cruel irony: it probably would have lost all its real users in the process.

The shitcoins of the world operate on a simple principle: the people making the biggest promises are often the ones with the smallest actual user bases. They trade in speculation, not utilization.

The Uncomfortable Truth: Who Actually Benefits?

There’s another layer to this story. Perhaps “Dead or Not” succeeded precisely because it serves people who feel the anxiety—but don’t truly need the app to survive. Those facing genuine isolation, paradoxically, might never use it. It’s a luxury good sold as a necessity.

This mirrors crypto’s broken promise perfectly. DeFi was supposed to bring financial inclusion to the unbanked. Yet the people who genuinely need financial inclusion are often the least equipped to navigate decentralized finance. Instead, DeFi attracted speculators, traders, and venture capitalists.

One sector prioritizes users who will pay. The other prioritizes investors who will speculate.

So Is 10 Million Yuan Expensive or Cheap?

The answer depends entirely on which ruler you’re using.

By Web2 standards: an app developed in one month by three people, no external funding, no venture capital—and it topped the paid charts globally. A 10 million yuan valuation seems not just reasonable, but conservative.

By crypto standards: no token. No narrative. No FDV. No unlock schedule favoring early investors. Only 10 million yuan? That’s essentially given away. Why not launch a token, raise 100 million, and see what happens?

The gap between these two worlds reveals something fundamental: In Web2, “people are actually using it” is a prerequisite for value. In Web3, it’s treated as an accident—a nice-to-have, but never essential.

One world built a product people genuinely wanted. The other built narratives people wanted to believe in—at least until the shitcoins crashed 99%.

The author, having finished this analysis, actually downloaded “Dead or Not” and checked in. 8 yuan for peace of mind. At the very least, it’s more reliable than most shitcoins they’ve ever purchased.