The influence economy of crypto Twitter: How a small number of accounts control the narrative

Author: rosie , Crypto KOL

Compiled by: Felix, PANews

The Crypto Twitter community (CT) calls itself the most decentralized information network in the financial sector. They call it "permissionless discussion". Anyone can share alpha, anyone can build their own audience, and anyone can influence the conversation.

But the reality is that about 100 accounts control how millions of people think about cryptocurrencies, which projects get traction, and where money flows. It’s the most centralized influence economy ever masquerading as grassroots community building.

This complex mechanism of influence is the envy of even traditional media executives.

The inner circle of market manipulators

CT is not one large dialogue platform but a series of concentric circles, with influence radiating outward from the center and disproportionately.

First layer: Kingmakers (5-10 accounts). These accounts don’t just have followers, they have network effects. Once they tweet, hundreds of other accounts retweet within minutes. Their casual mentions can drive up token prices, their criticisms can destroy projects, and their endorsements can instantly give projects legitimacy.

When tweets at this level mention a project, it not only brings interaction, but also attracts institutional attention, venture capital interest, and retail investors’ FOMO.

Second layer: amplifiers (20-30 accounts). These accounts turn first layer tweets into trending topics. They quote-retweet, add comments, and ensure the information reaches their specific communities, such as venture capital partners, well-known builders, and ecosystem leaders.

Tier 3: Echo Chambers (70-75 accounts). Mid-tier influencers who repeat Tier 1 and Tier 2 ideas to their own audiences. They rarely bring new ideas to the table but are critical in amplifying the narrative. Their job is to make Tier 1 ideas look like community consensus.

Everyone else: The audience. Digest and respond to what the first 100 people have already determined is worth discussing.

How narratives actually spread

This process is not random—it is predictable:

Step 1: Planting seeds

Tier 1 accounts share opinions, insights, or discoveries. This could be a true alpha or a strategic outreach.

Step 2: Zoom in

The second level of accounts quote and forward the article within 1-3 hours, adding their own interpretations, which creates the illusion of independent discovery.

Step 3: Verification

The third tier of accounts chimed in, providing supporting evidence and creating social proof that “all smart people agree.”

Step 4: Cascade Effect

Retail accounts share fragmented versions of the narrative, often misinterpreting key details but disseminating the core message.

Step 5: Institutionalization

Crypto media writes articles citing “crypto Twitter sentiment” and the narrative becomes accepted fact.

The entire cycle takes only 24 to 48 hours. By the time most people see a “hot” cryptocurrency topic, the influence economy has already determined its direction.

The economics of influence

CT’s influence is more than just prestige – it’s a sophisticated business model:

Direct cashing:

Paid promotion disguised as accidental discovery
Get a "consultant" position on the project they tweeted about
Receive speaking fees at conferences and events
Newsletter Sponsorship and Premium Content

Indirect value capture:

Get project information and tokens in advance
Obtaining a favorable allocation in financing rounds
Network with Tier 1 VCs and founders
Board Positions and Equity Opportunities

Portfolio pull: Many top accounts are angel investors or advisors to crypto projects.

Gatekeeping issues

CT’s concentrated influence creates systemic bias:

Geographic bias: Most Tier 1 accounts are based in the United States, creating a US-centric global tech narrative.

Network bias: Projects with existing connections to influential accounts receive disproportionate attention, regardless of their technical merit.

Wealth Bias: Accounts with existing crypto wealth are able to participate in exclusive transactions, creating a compounding advantage.

Language bias: Non-English speaking programs and communities are systematically undervalued.

Professional bias: Financial engineering gets more attention than technological innovation because finance professionals are better at self-promotion.

Which content is promoted and which is ignored

Analyzing CT trends can clearly reveal the pattern of selecting content for promotion:

Contents to be promoted:

New L1 blockchains (especially EVM-compatible ones)
DeFi protocols with novel token mechanisms
Anything tagged with "infrastructure" or "extensions"
Projects for developers

Systematically ignored content:

No token or venture capital backed projects
Technological innovation without financial speculation
Developers who focus on delivery, not marketing
International projects without US background

The result is a feedback loop in which cryptocurrency development is focused on attracting the attention of CT users rather than truly advancing the technology.

The illusion of decentralized speech

CT presents itself as radically different from traditional media, but its power dynamics are strikingly similar:

Traditional media: A small number of editors decide what is worth reporting, journalists amplify those decisions, and audiences digest the filtered information.

Crypto Twitter: A small number of Tier 1 accounts decide which projects are worth following, Tier 2/3 accounts amplify those decisions, and the audience digests the filtered information.

The main difference is that CT’s influence economy is less transparent in terms of power structures and financial incentives.

Downstream impacts

Tangible consequences of CT’s concentration of influence:

Capital allocation: VCs look at CT sentiment when making investment decisions. Hot projects get meetings, while unpopular projects are ignored.

Developer attention: What projects builders choose to work on is based in part on what projects they see being promoted in their social feeds.

Retail investor behavior: Millions of people make financial decisions based on narratives from 100 accounts with undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Media Coverage: Crypto journalists use Twitter sentiment as a measure of importance, amplifying the influence economy’s co-opting.

Breaking the Cycle

Here are some observations to grapple with this reality:

For builders: Understand that technical excellence without a narrative means obscurity. Either learn to play the influence game or find allies willing to help.

For investors: Public opinion on CT is a lagging indicator of primary account opinion, not true market sentiment. By the time something is "hot," you're already too late.

For users: Pay attention to accounts that consistently share different viewpoints and in-depth technical analysis, rather than accounts that simply echo mainstream views and conduct paid promotions.

For the entire ecosystem: Recognize that the concentration of influence on CT undermines efforts towards decentralization.

summary

It’s not that the CT is broken – it’s functioning exactly as designed.

The problem isn’t the existence of influence networks (they always will) — it’s the pretense that CT represents an organic, decentralized discussion when in reality it is a complex influence economy with concentrated power and undisclosed economic incentives.