Summary
-
The pricing of Chinese Meme coins is not based on future cash flows or technological expectations, but on the combined effects of narrative propagation efficiency, emotional consensus strength, and attention density. Price itself becomes a verification tool of whether the narrative is still believed.
-
From the perspective of narrative economics, Meme coins are not an exception to value collapse but rather an extreme form of “consensus preceding value.” Price is no longer the shadow of value; instead, it functions as a metric of whether the narrative continues to be believed.
-
Chinese Meme coins are not merely financial assets; they also serve as carriers of social sentiment and identity formation. Trading behavior simultaneously reflects risk-taking games, emotional compensation, and a sense of group belonging.
-
The price dynamics of Meme coins are highly dependent on the lifecycle of narrative diffusion, following a propagation–decay structure similar to the SIR model. When the formation of new consensus slows and the number of exiting participants increases, prices often enter a correction phase—even when the narrative appears to be at peak popularity across the internet.
-
Attention has become the scarce resource, and price can be understood as a quantitative reflection of attention density.
Introduction: When Narratives Enter the Pricing System
At the beginning of 2026, the crypto market witnessed a cultural spectacle. Large numbers of Western traders on X began searching for Chinese internet phrases such as “我踏马来了” and “老子” Meme coins built entirely on Chinese internet slang—without whitepapers, technological roadmaps, or application scenarios—were able to reach hundreds of millions of dollars in market capitalization within 72 hours, driven by nothing more than a single phrase, a meme image, or a casual interaction on social media.
In the face of such assets, traditional financial analytical tools fail almost simultaneously. There are no cash flows to discount, no growth models to project, and no fundamentals that can sustain long-term discussion. Price fluctuations cannot be explained by “value creation,” nor justified by “technological breakthroughs.” Yet this is not merely a speculative bubble. Labeling it simply as “irrational” obscures the core issue: when a market lacks a widely accepted value anchor, consensus itself takes over the power of pricing. In such an environment, prices no longer fluctuate around value; instead, price itself becomes the proof that value exists.
The concept of Narrative Economics proposed by Robert J. Shiller provides a key perspective for understanding this phenomenon. Narrative economics does not treat markets as systems driven purely by rational calculation. Instead, it emphasizes that certain concise, emotionally resonant, and easily repeatable economic narratives can spread through populations like viruses. By shaping expectations and behavior, these narratives directly influence prices and market structures.
Chinese meme coins represent a typical case of this theory within the crypto context. In the absence of cash flows, technological innovation, or institutional endorsement, their “value support” does not come from future earnings, but from the efficiency and stickiness of narrative transmission. Their rapid rises and collapses are therefore not random events, but rather concrete manifestations of narrative life cycles unfolding within the market.
Building on the analytical framework of narrative economics, this article will examine how Chinese meme coins transform from cultural symbols into financial assets, and how narratives—through psychological mechanisms and structures of dissemination—shape behavior and prices in the market.
The Emergence of Chinese Meme Coins: A Language-Driven Narrative Mutation
If early meme coins relied on images, animals, or cartoon characters, the generation of Chinese meme coins that emerged between 2025 and 2026 represents a far more radical shift: the smallest unit of narrative is no longer an image, but language itself. A single sentence can generate consensus and be financialized within an extremely short period of time.
In fact, the Chinese internet had already staged a kind of “dress rehearsal” for this collective emotional dynamic. In 2025, the online influencer Hu Chenfeng sparked a viral narrative on social media around the distinction between “Apple People” and “Android People.” “Apple People” were portrayed as symbols of the elite class: users of iPhones, drivers of Teslas, residents of major cities with official Apple Stores, and consumers at mid-to-high-end retailers such as Sam’s Club. In contrast, “Android People” were depicted as ordinary or even lower-status individuals—using domestic Android phones, shopping in wet markets, and living in more modest housing conditions. A smartphone brand was forcibly translated into a life status, while consumption choices were simplified into markers of social position.
This categorization quickly expanded beyond smartphones themselves. The term “Android house” came to describe apartments with poor soundproofing and chaotic layouts; “Android car” referred to vehicles with high fuel consumption and messy interiors; even non-pedigree pets were jokingly labeled “Android cats.” Commodity symbols were systematically transformed into identity markers, constructing an absurd yet clearly structured hierarchy of social disdain. Despite its obvious logical flaws, the narrative spread rapidly because it was simple, biting, and easy to repeat. Eventually, however, the discourse sparked widespread controversy due to its tendency to inflame identity divisions, and the accounts associated with it were banned from platforms after September 2025.
Yet the phenomenon itself did not truly disappear. Its rapid spread across the internet was not because people genuinely believed that “phones determine class,” but because it tapped into a deeper reality: in an era of rising uncertainty, individuals’ anxiety about their own social position is seeking the lowest-cost and most intuitive form of expression. Consumer symbols happen to provide precisely such a medium.
It was on this emotional foundation that the narrative of “**Life” was quickly understood and amplified. On October 4, 2025, a casual reply on the platform X unexpectedly triggered one of the most representative narrative explosions in the history of Chinese meme coins. Almost simultaneously, a large number of related Chinese meme tokens appeared on Four.meme, while “**Life” quickly emerged as the central symbol around which consensus formed. It did not arise out of nowhere; rather, it cleverly repurposed the already well-rehearsed social narrative structure of the “Apple Life.” In real-world consumption discourse, “Apple” symbolizes elite status and a high-quality lifestyle. The Chinese meme was not telling a story about a token—it was promising a version of the “correct life.”
Over the next 96 hours, the market responded with almost uncontrolled intensity. The token began with a market capitalization of roughly $70,000 at launch, yet within just a few days it surged more than 6,000×, briefly reaching a market cap of $524 million. On October 7, the token was listed on B**** Alpha**, becoming the first Chinese meme coin to appear in that section and completing a crucial leap—from an online inside joke to a global financial event.
Alongside the explosive price surge came a series of wealth-creation stories that were repeatedly circulated across the community. On-chain data showed that some early addresses built positions with only a few thousand dollars and achieved paper gains of hundreds or even thousands of times their initial investment within a short period. Well-known on-chain traders and community opinion leaders continuously mentioned the Chinese meme on social media, posting screenshots of massive returns. These posts were repeatedly forwarded and echoed across group chats and timelines, further reinforcing the collective imagination that “this time is different.” Rising prices were no longer merely the outcome; they became part of the narrative itself, serving as retrospective proof of the narrative’s supposed “correctness.”
Soon after, memes tied to the Chinese zodiac Year of the Horse such as “我踏马来了,” historical figures like “老子” and cultural jokes such as “黑马” began to appear, collectively igniting a wave of Chinese meme coins.
In terms of form, this generation of Chinese meme coins displays a notable process of de-symbolization. They no longer rely on stable visual identities or elaborate fictional universes. A single sentence is enough to serve as the core of transmission. Images can be replaced and styles can be imitated, but once a phrase gains consensus, it carries its own momentum of propagation. In this sense, the core asset of Chinese meme coins does not lie in a logo or project design, but in whether that sentence can continue to be told and retold.
Irrational Games in Chinese Meme Token Trading
One of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of trading Chinese meme tokens is whether the participants are truly “irrational.” On the surface, chasing a token with no white paper, no technical roadmap, and no real-world use case clearly violates the rational assumptions of traditional finance. But if the perspective shifts from “project quality” to “individual circumstances,” the behavior reveals a harsh yet internally consistent logic. For the vast majority of participants, buying meme coins is not an asset allocation decision but a choice about one’s life trajectory. Rather than evaluating risk, they are essentially asking whether any other path still exists to change their fate.
In the real world, the pathways for wealth accumulation are becoming increasingly clear—and increasingly narrow. The returns to education are declining, career ceilings are visible, and long-term investment requires patience, resources, and background—precisely the conditions many people lack. In this context, what meme coins offer is not stable returns but an extremely simplified narrative: no long-term planning, no professional judgment, only the need to press “buy” at the right moment.
At this point, psychological mechanisms begin to replace rational calculation. The transparency of blockchain technology gives wealth-creation stories an unprecedented level of verifiability: examples of a few thousand dollars turning into millions can be repeatedly checked and widely shared. In contrast, the experiences of those who lost money quickly fall silent and lack the same momentum for dissemination. As a result, participants systematically overestimate their own probability of becoming “the next success story.”
This phenomenon is not accidental but a classic case of narrative-driven cognitive bias. As Robert J. Shiller points out in narrative economics, people do not act according to probability itself, but according to stories that are repeatedly told and emotionally reinforced. When a narrative like “$3,000 turning into $1.6 million” is retold over and over again, it ceases to be a mere anecdote and becomes psychologically upgraded into a future that might happen to me.
More importantly, what meme coins activate is not only greed but also a form of deep emotional compensation. In a reality where long-term effort does not guarantee rewards, participating in a high-risk, high-volatility game carries emotional value in itself. Even if the outcome is failure, participants can still tell themselves: at least I tried. By comparison, doing nothing and passively accepting a predetermined trajectory can feel even more anxiety-inducing.
This psychological dynamic is further amplified in narratives such as certain Chinese meme tokens. Such narratives do not ask participants to believe in a technological future; instead, they directly bind the token to the idea of a better version of life. The moment of buying is not merely acquiring a string of tokens—it is psychologically purchasing a ticket to an alternative life.
Yet the game structure of the meme coin market itself is extraordinarily brutal. It is almost a purely PVP environment, where every profit corresponds to someone else’s loss. The zero-sum nature of the game is further intensified by the highly concentrated distribution of on-chain holdings. In one representative Chinese meme token, the top ten addresses collectively controlled as much as 88% of the total supply for a prolonged period. Under such a structure, so-called “market consensus” is not shaped by a large number of dispersed participants but instead depends heavily on whether a small number of early large holders choose to continue holding. Once these addresses begin selling—even partially—the price can quickly lose its support.
For ordinary participants who enter later, the market they face is not a symmetrical game but a wager on when a small group of early holders will exit.
This dynamic produces a paradoxical situation: the more clear-headed participants tend to exit earlier, while those who enter later—and rely more heavily on the persuasive power of narrative—are more likely to become the final bag holders. This is also why many meme coins display a pattern of “peak at launch.” It is not that the market is foolish; rather, everyone is rationally anticipating the irrationality of others. Yet the distribution of tokens ensures that most people are destined to be too late to leave.
It is precisely within this psychological tension—where hope and fear coexist—that the meme coin market exhibits its highly emotional and extremely volatile character. These amplified emotions will also become the direct fuel for the rapid spread of narratives discussed in the next section.
The Spread of Narratives
When explaining why narrative-driven economic phenomena can experience exponential explosions within extremely short periods of time and then decline just as quickly, Robert J. Shiller draws on the SIR model from epidemiology. In this framework, social groups are divided into three states according to their relationship with a particular narrative.
The first group is Susceptible (S)—individuals who have not yet encountered the narrative or have not yet been convinced by it, but who remain within its potential sphere of influence. In the context of meme coins, these people may already have seen related content on social media. Phrases such as “some Chinese meme” or “我踏马来了” may sound familiar to them, yet they have not entered the market. Their defining characteristic is not skepticism, but simply that they have not yet been triggered.
The second group is Infected (I)—those who have accepted the narrative and begun to spread it. In the meme coin market, infection is not merely marked by buying the token; it is reflected in actively retelling the story: reposting screenshots of extraordinary profits, recounting stories of sudden wealth, and persuading others to enter the market. At this stage, the narrative itself becomes part of their behavior. Rising prices are interpreted as evidence that the narrative is “correct,” creating a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop.
The third group is Recovered (R)—individuals who no longer spread the narrative. This may be because they have already exited with profits, suffered losses and left the market, or simply lost confidence in the story altogether. In meme coin markets, once participants enter this stage, they often become silent very quickly, and may even develop resentment toward the narrative itself. They are no longer potential transmitters but instead become breakpoints in the chain of transmission.
Within this framework, the price trajectory of meme coins closely resembles the curve of an epidemic: a slow early spread, followed by exponential growth, and then a rapid peak and decline. The key factor is not whether the narrative is “true,” but whether the number of infected participants is still increasing. When the speed of transmission exceeds the rate at which participants exit, the narrative enters an explosive phase. But once more participants complete their exit and stop retelling the story, the narrative quickly loses momentum and fades.
This model also explains a seemingly counterintuitive phenomenon: why meme coins are often most dangerous precisely when they are “hottest” across the entire internet. From the perspective of the SIR framework, once a narrative enters the stage of universal discussion, it usually means that the pool of susceptible individuals has already been largely exhausted. The number of newly infected participants begins to decline, while the number of recovered (or removed) participants rises rapidly. At that point, the narrative’s spread is approaching its peak, and prices lose the influx of new consensus required to sustain further growth.
How Narratives Become Economic Forces
Within the framework of narrative economics, there is a frequently overlooked fact: in the modern economy, what is truly scarce is often not information itself, but people’s sustained attention. Once attention becomes the scarce resource, prices no longer fluctuate solely around intrinsic value; they begin to adjust according to the intensity of narrative transmission.
In meme coin markets, this mechanism appears in its most direct form. Most participants are not comparing the long-term returns of different assets. Instead, they are asking a much simpler question: how many people are currently watching, discussing, and believing this story? When attention concentrates, trading becomes active and prices rise. When attention shifts elsewhere, liquidity dries up rapidly and prices fall accordingly. This means that price is often not an expectation of future value, but rather a quantified reflection of current attention density.
Metrics that seem unrelated to finance—such as repost volume, discussion intensity, the spread of profit screenshots, and the frequency of mentions by key opinion leaders—actually form the core pricing infrastructure of meme coins. Rising prices are not merely an outcome; they also function as tools to attract further attention, thereby creating a self-reinforcing loop.
When thousands of new tokens are created every day, what is truly scarce is no longer projects themselves, but attention. In the meme coin world, visibility determines price. What is seen gains value; what is ignored quickly collapses to zero. Valuations are no longer built around technology, products, or long-term prospects, but around how many people are watching, discussing, and believing at this very moment.
The dissemination path of Chinese meme coins often follows a highly compressed, almost industrialized rhythm:
-
A small circle first forms consensus internally.
-
The narrative is rapidly transported to social media platforms.
-
A repost or comment by a key opinion leader triggers an inflection point of attention.
-
On-chain trading volume and wallet movements provide “objective evidence” for the narrative.
-
Screenshots of rising prices and profits circulate back to social media, igniting another wave of emotional momentum.
In this process, price increases are not simply the result of narrative—they become part of the narrative itself. Rising prices function as proof that “the story is being validated.” The higher the price, the truer the story appears; the truer the story appears, the more people are willing to buy. When the speed of narrative transmission significantly exceeds the speed of rational analysis, the market enters a phase sustained purely by expectations. In such a phase, traffic is no longer an auxiliary tool; it directly performs the function of valuation. Where attention goes, price follows.
Thus, a self-fulfilling cycle quickly emerges:
At the same time, the current wave of Chinese meme coins is not merely a financial phenomenon; it also carries a strong expression of social sentiment. Phrases such as “anti-VC,” “fair launch,” and “grassroots consensus” are not strict institutional mechanisms, but rather moral narratives. They do not solve structural problems within the system, yet they provide participants with psychological legitimacy: this is not speculation, but resistance against existing unfair structures; not mere profit-seeking, but standing on the side of “retail investors.”
Such narratives cloak high-risk behavior in moral justification, allowing participants to reconcile emotionally with their own choices. Buying meme coins is no longer just a bet on price; it becomes a statement of values and position.
More importantly, meme coins often sell a form of identity alongside the token itself. Buying in means joining a virtual tribe that shares a common language, humor, and set of perceived adversaries. Within this tribe, people gain a sense of belonging through memes, alignment, and the shared narrative of “us versus them.”
This tribalized narrative also explains why certain meme coins retain residual value even after experiencing dramatic crashes. As long as the narrative has not completely disappeared, the price always retains the possibility of being told again.
Conclusion: From Trading Assets to Trading Narratives
History repeatedly shows that human society has never operated purely on rational calculation; rather, it functions as a community sustained by shared stories. As Yuval Noah Harari has pointed out, what truly enables strangers to cooperate is not force or direct self-interest, but narratives that are collectively believed. Myths, religions, nations, and even money are, at their core, stories that are continuously told and retold.
Gold is regarded as valuable not because it generates yield, but because it carries the ancient narrative of permanence and safety. Likewise, the legitimacy of Bitcoin does not arise solely from its code, but from the modern myth it tells—one of decentralization and resistance to inflation.
Meme coins push this logic even further. They scarcely attempt to disguise the source of their value; instead, they place the principle of “consensus as value” openly before the market. When a single sentence, a meme, or a repost can mobilize real capital flows, what we are witnessing is not market disorder, but the visible manifestation of the power of narrative.
References:
Gate Research is a comprehensive blockchain and cryptocurrency research platform that provides deep content for readers, including technical analysis, market insights, industry research, trend forecasting, and macroeconomic policy analysis.
Disclaimer
Investing in cryptocurrency markets involves high risk. Users are advised to conduct their own research and fully understand the nature of the assets and products before making any investment decisions. Gate is not responsible for any losses or damages arising from such decisions.
