You’ve probably noticed how brands talk about “community” these days. Everyone wants to build one. But most companies still treat their biggest fans like spectators. You engage with their content, you buy their products, you defend them on social media, and what do you get? Some points, a discount code could be used, or if you’re lucky, a shoutout.
Web3 is changing this whole equation. When communities own a stake in what they’re building together, everything shifts. You’re not just a customer anymore. You’re a stakeholder. And that difference matters more than most people realize.
When Communities Become Owners
Web3 introduces something fundamentally different through shared ownership via tokens: when you hold tokens in a project, you’re not just participating because you actually own a piece of what gets built. This completely changes the incentive structure, aligning your interests with the project’s success.
Take MaxiDogeToken as one example of how this model works in practice. It’s an ERC-20 memecoin that recently raised over $3.8 million. It powers a social ecosystem where holders aren’t just consumers but stakeholders who actively shape the project’s direction through governance rights over community initiatives. The community runs challenges and contests, shares tips. It interacts through on-chain mini-apps, and, more importantly, when the project grows, everyone who participated early benefits directly rather than watching value flow solely to a central team.
This model flips the script on traditional engagement: you’re not working to build someone else’s brand for free, but instead creating something you collectively own, which means every contribution you make builds value in your own holdings.
The Old Model of Brand Communities: Engagement Without Equity
Historically, traditional brand communities were based on a relatively straightforward barter system: you put in time and attention, and the brand gives back mostly non-monetary rewards. Think about loyalty programs where you rack up points that expire, participate in forums where the company controls every decision, and create content that drives value. Companies like Apple have long thrived on this model, engaging their customers through sleek design, product launches, and a strong brand following. However, while the community provides the value and labor, the company retains all the financial upside.
The financial inequality between brands and their communities is exemplified best in gaming communities. The gamers spend thousands of hours creating value in the form of mods (game modifications), tournament organization, and content that attracts new players to the world, thereby increasing its value. While the gaming company makes millions of dollars in profit from that time and effort, the community is rewarded with nothing more than possibly some free skins or early access. A similar imbalance exists in other sectors, take Amazon, for instance. While Amazon Prime members contribute to the platform’s success by providing valuable feedback, reviews, and even generating content (such as video reviews and product unboxing), the primary financial rewards still go to Amazon itself. The value flows in one direction: from the community to the company.
The Economics of Shared Success
In many cases, the economic implications of tokenizing a community are specific to that model when every member participates through tokens (or another form of shared equity), and behavior changes in both positive and predictable ways. Members of the community act as quality gatekeepers, making decisions that yield long-term value for themselves by increasing the value of the assets they own. The same behavior can be seen as members of the community call out bad ideas because those ideas will negatively affect their own portfolios.
On the flip side, we see how traditional brand communities often operate. Moderators typically volunteer their time, and power users contribute countless hours to the community. However, none of these volunteers ever receives any financial compensation for their contributions to the brand community. Token communities function differently: early contributors and active members earn value as the project grows and becomes successful. The alignment between the contributor/member and the project’s success is created within the token economy, not based solely on the goodwill of the contributor/member or on the promise of future recognition.
We are witnessing this model working across different industries. For example, DAOs allow token holders to vote on treasury allocations and other strategic decisions, while NFT projects grant royalties to NFT holders. Similarly, DeFi platforms reward users who supply liquidity with governance tokens, enabling them to participate in platform decision-making.
Case studies from these sectors provide concrete examples of how decentralized ownership not only empowers communities but also creates sustainable, shared success. The one common thread among these models is that value is distributed to participants rather than to a single entity controlling the entire operation. In contrast, many traditional startups still rely on centralized decision-making, where founders and investors hold the majority of control and equity.
The Challenges Nobody Talks About
While token-based communities are better than nothing, they do have their own challenges that will affect their long-term success. For instance, volatile price action can cause investors to focus on an asset rather than its development potential, large token holders can have significant influence over a community, and regulatory uncertainty is always looming and will directly impact every decision made within that community.
Managing governance at scale (i.e., coordinating governance across thousands of anonymous holders) will become increasingly difficult, resulting in lengthy proposal timelines (sometimes weeks) and low voter turnout.
In addition, token-based communities face accessibility issues because, if tokens have monetary value, individuals need money to participate. Unfortunately, many individuals who would provide great value to a community will be unable to participate in a token-based community because they lack funds. Some token-based communities address these issues through airdrops or free tokens for participants, but the question of how to create both open and closed access remains unresolved.
Moving Forward
The shift from engagement to ownership is a fundamental change in how communities and brands interact. In this new model, participation comes with equity, and your contributions build value you actually own. While not every brand will adopt this, for those where community drives success, shared ownership aligns incentives, rewards contributors, and fosters long-term commitment. The next wave of successful brands won’t just have communities, they’ll be built and owned by them, ensuring value is shared fairly.
To read more content like this, explore The Brand Hopper
Subscribe to our newsletter
