Is the Crypto Conference Circuit Good for Crypto?

It’s the reality of working in this space: relentless travel and endless panels. But let’s be honest: it’s time to reconsider the conference circuit.

This isn’t to say all conferences are useless — some, like Consensus, ETHDenver and others, are valuable. But, spending an entire year bouncing from one event to the next is hardly a recipe for adoption. If it were, we’d have more to show for it than empty crowd shots and panelists answering their moderator’s questions to vacant seats. Some photos which got more attention than entire side events. While it makes sense for a decentralized industry with no central hub to meet up in person, it’s become a running joke: even people based in the same city often have to meet at a conference halfway across the world. It’s neither efficient nor sustainable.

For the moment, networking in this field primarily occurs at conferences, and until a central industry platform arises, this trend is likely to continue. However, acquiring a few new Telegram contacts and taking selfies with pledges to reconnect later aren’t equivalent to having dedicated time at home to generate genuine value. In essence, the majority of these conversations transform into a forgotten cemetery of messages, failing to progress beyond the initial intention to “reconnect after the conference.” Unless there’s a quantifiable benefit that can be measured each quarter for all the expenses involved, it doesn’t seem logical.

Is it truly the mass adoption we seek that originates from gatherings where there’s widespread agreement, addressed to audiences largely absent? Among those present, how many are merely there to validate existing viewpoints? This situation, supported by a “pay-to-play” system that prioritizes stage time over genuine talent, offers scant opportunities for groundbreaking ideas to flourish. Instead, it fosters an environment where novel insights are scarce, and significant intellectual diversity is virtually non-existent – more of an echo chamber than a platform for new ideas.

As an analyst, I find myself growing increasingly frustrated with the frequent occurrence of large DJ acts gracing our events while bull runs prevail. It seems that their understanding and appreciation for the industry are questionable at best. Am I alone in feeling this fatigue? Is anyone else concerned about the potential financial drain caused by these events?

At present, the main aim appears to be achieving dominance as the most significant player in the crypto sphere – for crypto companies and influential figures within this domain. However, given the limited resources available, even for well-funded enterprises that have or haven’t issued their tokens, it might be prudent to reassess the cost-effectiveness of such a strategy. If this approach were truly successful, wouldn’t we find ourselves in a situation where chains with market caps in the billions are still unable to attract users in the single digits daily? It’s a tough perspective, but it’s essential to examine the situation through this lens.

Initially, it’s important to note that even well-staffed crypto teams are relatively small compared to traditional corporations. When these teams, whose primary goal is promoting adoption, are taken away from their tasks for expensive conferences – including conference fees, travel, accommodation, and daily expenses for food and transport – it raises a question: who ultimately gains? The truth appears to be that the only area where this industry has successfully found a suitable match (product-market fit) is in organizing events.

Moving forward, let’s discuss the vast amount of funds invested in numerous side events occurring alongside each primary conference. For instance, at Token2049 in Singapore last September, approximately 600 such events took place. Organizing venues for hundreds of these events, securing sponsors, arranging keynote speeches and panel discussions – all while a costly main event is ongoing – tends to dilute the audience, resulting in empty rooms and reduced interaction. At best, these occasions offer photo opportunities that make us feel significant, leading us to believe that appearing on an attractive stage alongside peers is an accomplishment. In truth, it’s a self-indulgent endeavor, benefiting only the egos of those on stage.

In any industry aiming for credibility, leaders are expected to evaluate their spending—what’s being spent, why, what it achieves, and what the returns on those spends are. So, if crypto wants to be taken seriously, why aren’t we asking the same questions? Right now, all of this is propped up by venture capital and token launches — both limited resources. Even as Bitcoin nears an all-time high, companies like ConsenSys are laying off 20% of their staff and dYdX laid off 35% of their staff just this week. So, what exactly is the purpose of this conference circuit?

This statement doesn’t mean we should completely forgo conferences. However, is it sensible to devote an entire year traveling from one conference to another? Couldn’t Stripe’s acquisition of Bridge serve as a warning sign? What was that team doing to secure the largest and most successful acquisition in our industry so far – by a company that isn’t even crypto-native? Stripe recognized the potential in this sector and took a proactive step that could potentially pave the way for widespread adoption.

If some of the money spent annually on conferences is instead invested in innovative approaches for welcoming new users, we’d stand to gain significantly more. Instead, let’s make our ideas clear and appealing to potential users who might appreciate our technology. Otherwise, we could continue being viewed as a temporary trend without any real-world applications or dedicated user base.

Please be aware that the opinions shared within this article belong solely to the writer and may not align with those held by CoinDesk Inc., its stakeholders, or associated entities.