From creation to recognition: why cryptocurrency needs a proper distribution strategy

Creating a cryptocurrency or a tokenized asset from a technical standpoint is no longer a problem. The blockchain operates stably, returns are competitive — from conservative 3% on US government bonds to 10% on riskier instruments, and the regulatory framework has already been established. Storage solutions from reliable providers are ready to accept assets. It would seem that all conditions for mass institutional adoption are in place. But this is precisely where the main problem begins. Even under ideal technical and regulatory conditions, institutions move at a turtle’s pace. And it’s not just regulatory delays or inherent conservatism of financiers — it’s a misunderstanding of the very mechanism of implementing new financial products.

Two distribution strategies: what is the radical difference

In the cryptocurrency industry, “distribution” means launching a token, liquidity programs, viral marketing on Twitter. Fast, bright, with maximum short-term impact.

In traditional finance, “distribution” is a completely different mechanism. It’s a structured, multi-level process of educating the market. Financial advisors need to understand the product. Specialized publications need to discuss it. Risk committees need to see use cases. Investors need to hear about the product repeatedly, from different authoritative sources, before making a decision.

These goals are completely opposite and require entirely different approaches. A viral news about a new token will attract speculators but will not earn trust from corporate pension funds or family offices. These investors operate under different rules — they need confidence, repeatability of information, and reputational confirmation.

How to gain institutional trust: lessons from financial innovation history

Look at how ETFs scaled in the 2000s. The technology was innovative but not revolutionary. Scaling happened thanks to systematic work: educating financial advisors, constant mentions in business media, accumulating case studies, support from market leaders like Vanguard and BlackRock.

The same companies didn’t just create better products — they built distribution networks that taught the market to think differently. The same logic applied to derivatives in the 1980s, mortgage-backed securities in the 1990s, Bitcoin ETFs in the 2020s. Each of these innovations took years of lobbying, education, and repeated communication.

Bitcoin ETFs waited over ten years from Bitcoin’s creation to the first approval on the market. And what about tokenization? Most projects spend 90% of resources on engineering and 10% on actual distribution — despite being a completely new field requiring maximum education and trust.

Creating a cryptocurrency — only the first step: a long-term market education strategy

When I help teams with tokenized assets, I see the same mistake repeatedly. The product architecture is carefully designed, the legal structure is transparent, the returns are attractive. But the team spends months refining the code and only a few weeks on market implementation — usually one press release and a few conference speeches.

Then the same leadership is surprised why institutions aren’t interested.

The simple answer: these investors don’t understand where to fit your product into their existing mental models. They haven’t seen enough discussions in authoritative sources. They lack the context to justify the decision to their own risk committees. They can’t explain it, so they won’t invest.

That’s why liquidity in crypto markets remains a lagging indicator, not a leading one. The industry expects liquidity to confirm success, but liquidity only comes after a certain level of understanding is established.

How it looks in practice: from education to scaling

The right strategy doesn’t start with liquidity or incentives, but with rethinking how you explain your product, what comparisons you use, what communication channels you prioritize.

A training system is needed. Repeated messages through different trusted sources. Real case studies and examples. Respect for how traditional finance works, rather than trying to remake it by crypto rules.

The distribution problem becomes even more acute when you ask an institution to adopt not just a new product, but a new infrastructure. This requires more time, more repetitions, more proof. It demands treating distribution as a first-class function, not just marketing and PR.

Real-world example: how Pudgy Penguins builds trust

In practice, this looks like Pudgy Penguins. The project understood that it’s necessary to engage users through mainstream channels before introducing them to Web3. First came toys in retail, then viral media, then games with 500k+ downloads in two weeks, and only then NFTs and the PENGU token.

As of 2026, data shows:

• PENGU Price: $0.01
• Market Cap: $588.75M
• Circulating Supply: 62.86 billion PENGU
• Daily Trading Volume: $3.25M

The project correctly understands that creating a cryptocurrency is not an end, but a beginning. The beginning of a long journey to earn trust through a multi-channel approach.

Main conclusion: technology is solved, now a strategy is needed

The industry’s main mistake is assuming that investors adopt new financial products as retail traders do — randomly, emotionally, via Twitter. But pension fund managers, family offices, and charitable foundations operate under different rules.

They need structured education. They need reliable sources of information. They need examples and case studies. And they definitely need to see the product repeatedly in trusted contexts.

Tokenization and new cryptocurrencies will not scale when it becomes easier to create them. They will scale when it becomes easier to understand them. And that’s the responsibility of those who create these assets.