In December 2024, two events occurred almost simultaneously: Nike announced the closure of its virtual sneaker studio, RTFKT, in January 2025; Adidas officially launched its ALTS digital avatar series, three years in the making. The two largest global sportswear brands made drastically different choices at the same time. Similar divergences have spread throughout the industry. Over the past four years, almost all leading consumer brands have experimented with Web3: Starbucks launched the NFT membership program Odyssey, which closed after approximately 22 months; Louis Vuitton released the €39,000 digital collectible VIA Treasure Trunk, which continues to operate and expand its product line; Gucci opened a virtual store at Roblox; H&M experimented with a metaverse showroom; and LVMH even used a metaverse approach to present content at its 2023 shareholders' meeting. Both are leading brands, both have made significant investments, and both claim to be optimistic about the long-term value of Web3—why such drastically different outcomes? Before discussing specific cases, it's necessary to return to a fundamental question: Why are traditional brands venturing into Web3? During the 2021 boom, many brands entered the field citing reasons like "everyone else is doing it" or "it seems innovative." This lack of clear objectives inherently creates uncertainty—when brands haven't clearly defined the specific problems they want to solve, such technological attempts often resemble a high-cost demonstration rather than building long-term capabilities. The above content is excerpted from Web3Caff Research's "Traditional Brands' Web3 Practice: A 10,000-Word Research Report: Exploring Long-Term Value Differentiation in Web3—A Road to Hell or a Discovery of Opportunities? A Panoramic Analysis of its Development Background, Typical Cases, Business Models, Compliance Paths, and Future Prospects" Click to view the full version 👇