Original Title: What If: I Were the Founder of Kaito?
Original Author: RYAN YOON, TIGER RESEARCH
Translated by: Peggy, BlockBeats
Editor's Note: A recent API policy adjustment by X caused InfoFi to "collectively shut down" within three days. This collapse not only exposed the deep reliance of Web3 on centralized platforms but also revealed another side of the incentive mechanism: the more rewards there are, the faster the manipulation, and the harder it is to control content quality.
This article uses Kaito as a starting point to outline five possible paths for the InfoFi project and points out that InfoFi 2.0 is likely to evolve into a more controlled model with smaller scale, stronger filtering, and greater emphasis on quality. Additionally, a more critical question is, after the airdrops and narratives fade, what can support the value of InfoFi's tokens?
The following is the original text:
Key Takeaways
X's policy change caused the InfoFi ecosystem to collapse within three days, exposing the structural limits of over-reliance on centralized platforms.
The InfoFi project currently faces five options: shut down; transform into a task platform based on a reward mechanism; adopt a Korean-style brand sponsorship writing model; expand to multi-platform operations; or transform into an MCN-style KOL management model.
InfoFi 2.0 is likely to evolve into a smaller, more controllable model, shifting from "permissionless large-scale expansion" to "collaboration between filtered KOLs and project parties."
Two fundamental issues remain unresolved: how to establish a fair compensation system and how to provide reasonable support for token value.
InfoFi Collapses in Three Days
Source: X (@nikitabier)
On January 15, X's product head Nikita Bier posted a brief update, clearly stating that the platform would no longer allow applications that "exchange rewards for posts" to continue operating. For the InfoFi project, this was almost equivalent to a death sentence.
According to Kaito founder Yu Hu's recollection, the events unfolded as follows:
January 13: Kaito received an email from X stating that it might enter the review process. The team immediately sent a request for further clarification.
January 14: X issued a formal legal notice, and Kaito submitted a legal response the same day.
January 15: Nikita Bier's public post was published. Kaito, like everyone else, learned of the final decision almost simultaneously.
The market's reaction was ruthless.
$KAITO plummeted, and the community began to accuse the team of "claiming to have a contingency plan but failing to inform of the risks in advance." That evening, Kaito issued an emergency statement explaining that they had previously received legal notices from X but had resolved them by signing new agreements, so this time the team chose to wait for further communication and negotiation.
But regardless of the explanation, the reality was clear: a single decision by X directly ended the entire InfoFi ecosystem. In just three days, an entire sector collapsed simply because the platform deemed it detrimental to user experience and content quality.
If I Were the Founder of an InfoFi Project Today
Does this mean InfoFi is finished? Projects like Kaito are already preparing for the next step. However, what is truly needed now is not to continue the old model but to seek a different form of InfoFi 2.0.
If I were the founder of an InfoFi project like Kaito, what viable options would remain today? By outlining these "feasible" paths, we might sketch out what the next phase of InfoFi could look like.
Shut Down
This is the most direct and simplest option: to quickly scale back and cease operations before funds run out. In reality, many small to medium projects may enter a "zombie state," essentially ceasing product updates, only occasionally posting a few social media updates, and then slowly disappearing.
Since the product's PMF (Product-Market Fit) was built on X, and that foundation has now been removed, it is more commercially rational to cut losses and exit proactively rather than continue burning money in search of a new direction.
If the project still holds reusable data assets, it could also consider selling them to other companies to recover some value. For this reason, most small to medium-sized InfoFi projects are likely to choose this path.
Task Platform Based on Reward Mechanism
When it is no longer possible to use X's API, a viable alternative is to revert to a more "traditional" incentive model: allowing KOLs to directly sign up for activities, with content submitted for manual review, and rewards issued upon approval.
This mechanism is essentially more like early "task platforms" or "bounty activities": KOLs actively apply; project parties manually screen and assign tasks; creators submit content; rewards are settled after platform review.
It sacrifices the original automation and scalability but gains a more controllable execution process. In a tightening regulatory environment, this "inefficient but compliant" approach may actually be more sustainable.
Source: Scribble
Scribble is a typical case. The project party releases grants in the form of "bounty tasks," and KOLs create content and submit it for review, receiving rewards only after approval. This mechanism does not involve real-time tracking and instant settlement but leans more towards a "submission-review" process model.
This structure has the potential to become an open platform: the platform provides matchmaking and infrastructure support, while specific activity operations and content management remain the responsibility of each project. As more projects join, the KOL pool will expand; as the creator scale grows, project parties will have more collaborative options.
However, its drawbacks are also evident: for KOLs, the uncertainty is high. If content is rejected, the time invested becomes a total loss. After multiple failures, KOLs may choose to leave the platform.
Korean-style "Brand Blog" Model
Source: Revu
The Korean "brand blog" model follows a "screen first, manage later" path, rather than the "create content, then review" approach of bounty platforms. Institutions like Revu have been operating with this model for over a decade.
The process is also clear: the project party first sets a target number of participants and publishes the activity. After creators submit applications, the project party screens potential KOLs based on follower count, historical performance, and other data. Selected KOLs receive clear content guidelines and writing requirements. After content is published, operations staff check it; if it does not meet standards, revisions are requested; if not submitted on time, penalties or deductions may apply.
The biggest advantage of this model is that creators are unlikely to "work in vain." As long as they pass the screening and execute according to the guidelines, compensation can essentially be considered locked in, avoiding the risk of "being rejected after completion, with labor costs reduced to zero" that exists in bounty mechanisms. For project parties, because the collaborators are pre-screened, quality management is easier, and overall execution is more controllable.
Multi-Platform Expansion
If X is no longer available, the next realistic option is to shift focus to platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. In fact, within the Web3 community, "moving out of X" has already become a consensus: to achieve meaningful growth, it is necessary to migrate from a community primarily composed of crypto-native users to channels where a broader audience resides.
The biggest advantage of this route is that the potential user base far exceeds that of X. Especially in emerging markets like Southeast Asia and Latin America, the influence of TikTok and Instagram may even be stronger. Meanwhile, the content distribution logic across different platforms varies; even if one platform is restricted, exposure and operations can still be maintained on other channels.
However, the cost is a sharp increase in operational complexity. On X, only text and interactions need to be reviewed; on YouTube, the length and production quality directly determine performance; on TikTok, the first three seconds can almost determine success or failure; on Instagram, the completion of Stories, layout, and format must be evaluated. This requires the team to have platform operational capabilities or to establish new tools and processes. Additionally, the API policies and data scraping methods of each platform are inconsistent, equivalent to "rebuilding the system."
Policy risks still exist; any platform could suddenly change rules like X did. However, multi-platform layout at least reduces single-point risks. For larger projects, this is also the only direction that still has "scalability potential."
MCN-style KOL Management Model
In the Web2 MCN model, the brand value of KOLs itself determines commercial value; in Web3, this effect is even more extreme. Narratives drive the flow of funds, and the influence of opinion leaders is amplified to the point where they can directly sway token prices, with a single comment triggering volatility.
Some successful InfoFi projects have already formed a group of active and highly consistent KOLs. These KOLs are not temporary hires from outside but have gradually grown through months of participation on the platform. Compared to Web2 MCNs that rely on continuously "discovering new talent," InfoFi is more likely to retain this existing group of KOLs and shift the platform's advantages towards data-driven management and distribution.
The so-called MCN transformation means that the cooperative relationship will shift from a loose "voluntary participation" to more formal contracts and bindings. With the long-term accumulated data and relationship networks, the platform's bargaining power in the Web3 ecosystem will also be stronger, making it easier to secure better cooperation terms and resource positions.
However, this path places higher demands on InfoFi projects: they must have a sufficiently strong management system, and "data" will become a core asset. If the platform can use data to guide KOLs' output rhythm, content direction, and conversion effects, and provide project parties with more professional, data-driven GTM (Go-To-Market) strategies, this model could form a more long-term competitive barrier.
InfoFi 2.0
The collapse of InfoFi leaves two important lessons for the entire Web3 ecosystem.
First, it is a satire of decentralization: many Web3 projects are, in fact, highly dependent on the centralized platform X, and a single decision by X is enough to cause the entire system to collapse.
Second, it highlights the boundaries of incentive design: while the reward mechanism successfully attracted a large number of participants, the platform lacked effective quality control measures, leading to a rapid proliferation of junk content and manipulation, which also provided X with ample justification for intervention and shutdown.
Source: X (@nikitabier)
Does this mean InfoFi is finished?
Not entirely. A few projects that have truly achieved product-market fit (PMF) may still survive by changing their form, such as shifting to multi-platform expansion, conducting more selective activity placements, or upgrading to an MCN-style KOL management model.
However, InfoFi 2.0 is likely to become smaller, more controllable, and place greater emphasis on content quality. It will shift from the previous open, permissionless, scale-seeking "platform model" to a curated collaboration network, resembling an integrated marketing platform that combines localized GTM with components like offline advertising to form a more complete execution loop.
Yet, fundamental issues remain.
Joel Mun from Tiger Research House points out that once a reward mechanism is introduced, participants will inevitably seek ways to "game the system," making it nearly impossible to design a fair incentive structure. Such behavior will continue to lower content quality and create a negative feedback loop, ultimately backfiring on the platform itself—this is a key challenge that the InfoFi project must confront.
David raises a more fundamental question. He believes that the value support for InfoFi tokens is less about the platform's actual performance and more about being built on "staking airdrops" and "narrative faith." However, both of these have now lost their real significance, leading to a direct question: why would investors still want to buy InfoFi tokens?
If InfoFi 2.0 wants to survive, it must provide clear answers to these questions. A project disconnected from its token holders will ultimately struggle to achieve true sustainability.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
