Tiger Research: If I were the founder of Kaito, how would I decide in the face of a change in InfoFi

The present report is submitted by♪ Tiger Research ♪Written. The dramatic change in the API policy of the X platform (formerly Twitter) led to the instant collapse of the InfoFi ecosystem. As a leading industry project, if I was the founder of Kaito, what were the viable paths for transformation at the current node

Core views

• The ecological collapse in three days:The policy adjustment of the X platform destroyed InfoFi ecology in just three days and exposed the structural fragility of the over-reliance of the Web3 project on the centralized platform。

• Five paths to survival:The InfoFi project currently faces five options: to shut down completely, to transform the bounty funding platform, to adopt the Korean sponsorship model, to expand or evolve into the MCN KOL management model。

• InfoFi 2.0 evolution:the future model will be more sophisticated and manageable, from “ scale-up without permission ” shift to “ and verified quality cooperation &rdquo。

• Fundamental challenges:Establishing equitable incentive compensation systems and re-provening the intrinsic value of tokens remains the gap that industries must bridge。

1. InfoFi within three days “ collapse ”

On 15 January, Nikita Bier, Director of X Platform Products, issued a short announcement stating clearly that it would no longer be allowed to operate on the platform through the use of incentives to induce user postings. For InfoFi, this is tantamount to issuing “ death sentence &rdquo。

According to Kaito FounderYu HuThe time line for disclosure, the event evolved as follows:

• 13 January:Kaito received an email from the X platform suggesting that it might be reviewed and requesting clarification。

• 14 January:The platform sent an official legal notice and Kaito submitted a legal response on the same day。

• 15 January:Official statements were made public and Kaito was informed of the final decision along with the entire industry。

The market response was extremely dramatic, with the dollar KATO prices shrunk sharply. The community blamed the team for failing to provide early warning, even though it claimed to have been planned. Kaito subsequently issued an urgent statement explaining that on previous occasions similar disputes had been resolved through legal means, thereby misjudged the space for consultation on the incident。

Lessons learned: A single decision by a centralized company ended an emerging Web3 category within three days. This & ldquo; the right to life and death & rdquo; the state of affairs in the hands of others suffocates the entire ecology。

If I was the founder of InfoFi

Does that mean InfoFi has gone into a dead end? Projects like Kaito are already preparing for the next development program. However, what is needed now is not to continue the old path of the past, but rather a distinct “ InfoFi 2.0” version。

If I were the founder of the InfoFi project like Kaito, what were the practical options? By looking at these potential ways forward, we can begin to outline the next phase of InfoFi。

2.1 Total closure

this is the simplest and most immediate option: to stop operating until the funds are completely depleted. in fact, many small and medium-sized projects may enter “ zombie phase ” — — and are largely inactive, occasionally publishing social media dynamics and then slowly disappearing from public view。

Given the &ldquo previously built around the X platform; the convergence of products with the market & rdquo; and the fact that PMFs are now virtually non-existent, it is more realistic to opt for closure than to keep burning money in the search for new, empty directions. If the project has available data assets in its hands, they can be sold to other companies to recover part of the residual value. Therefore, most of the smaller InfoFi projects may choose this path。

2.2 Reward-based funding platform

IF X'S API CANNOT BE ACCESSED AGAIN, ANOTHER OPTION IS TO RETURN TO AN EARLIER BUSINESS MODEL: KOL DIRECTLY APPLIES FOR RELEVANT ACTIVITIES AND RECEIVES AN AWARD AFTER SUBMISSION OF THE CONTENT AND MANUAL REVIEW。

HereScribbleThe representative model is a typical example. The projecter issues the funding assignment in the form of a reward, and KOL creates and submits the content for review by the Platform and is remunerated after approval. This is a “ first submitted, then cleared ” model rather than relying on API for real-time tracking。

SUCH A STRUCTURE COULD BE EXPANDED AS AN OPEN PLATFORM: IT WOULD PROVIDE ONLY A BROKER AND INFRASTRUCTURE, WHILE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT PARTIES WOULD MANAGE THEIR OWN ACTIVITIES. AS THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS INVOLVED INCREASES, THE KOL POOL EXPANDS; AND THE GROWTH OF THE KOL BASE, IN TURN, PROVIDES MORE OPTIONS FOR THE PROJECT PARTICIPANTS. THE DISADVANTAGE IS THAT KOL FACES GREAT UNCERTAINTY, AND IF THE CONTENT SUBMITTED IS REJECTED, THE TIME AND EFFORT INVESTED IS WASTED. AFTER MANY FAILURES, HIGH-QUALITY KOL IS LIKELY TO LEAVE THE PLATFORM。

2.3 Korea-sponsored blog model

the korean model of sponsorship of blogs follows &ldquao; the method of selecting and managing &rdquao; rather than ex post facto. yeahRevuSuch a model has been used by such institutions for more than a decade。

THE PROCESS IS VERY CLEAR: THE PROJECT PARTY SETS THE TARGET NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS AND PUBLISHES THE ACTIVITY, AND AFTER SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION THE PROJECT PARTY SELECTS THE APPROPRIATE KOL BASED ON THE NUMBER OF FANS, PAST PERFORMANCE, ETC. THE SELECTED KOL WILL RECEIVE A CLEAR CREATIVE GUIDE, WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE OPERATOR AFTER PUBLICATION. IF THE CRITERIA WERE NOT MET, THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED AND IF DEADLINES WERE MISSED, THE PENALTY WOULD BE CORRESPONDING。

IN THIS PATTERN, KOL CAN BE EFFECTIVE IN AVOIDING FUTILITY. ONCE SELECTED, REMUNERATION IS GENERALLY GUARANTEED, PROVIDED THAT THE GUIDELINES ARE FOLLOWED. UNLIKE THE REWARD-BASED SYSTEM, THERE IS NO RISK OF UNJUSTIFIED REJECTION OF WORK DONE. FROM THE PROJECT PARTY ' S PERSPECTIVE, QUALITY CONTROL WILL ALSO BE MADE EASIER BY SELECTING ONLY PRE-VETTED PARTICIPANTS。

2.4 Multiplatform Expansion

If the X platform is no longer fertile ground, the next option is necessarily to turn to YouTube, TikTok and Instagram. In the Web3 area, there has been a strong push beyond the X platform. The prevailing view is that real growth requires a shift from a platform dominated by encrypted primary users to a mass channel with a wider audience。

The main advantage of this path is that it has a much larger base of potential users than the X platform, especially in emerging markets such as South-East Asia and Latin America, TikTok and Instagram have a strong influence. At the same time, the algorithms for each platform are different, and even if one channel is restricted, the overall operation can be maintained。

However, the challenge posed by this trade-off is the surge in operational complexity. On the X platform, only text-based postings are usually reviewed; on YouTube, the length and quality of content are critical; on TikTok, the first three seconds of the video determine performance; and on Instagram, the performance and format quality of Story must be assessed. This requires expertise tailored to specific platforms and even the development of entirely new internal tools. Because of the wide variety of API policies and data collection methods across the platforms, this is virtually equivalent to starting from scratch to reconstruct the entire project. In addition, policy risks are still present and any platform may suddenly change rules like platform X. It is true, however, that decentralization of activities to multiple platforms can significantly reduce reliance on a single platform, which is the only option for larger projects that can provide substantive scalability。

2.5 MCN KOL MANAGEMENT

In Web2's MCN (multi-channel network) model, KOL's brand value is critical. In the Web3 area, this influence is even more decisive: narratives drive capital, and a comment by opinion leaders can have a direct impact on currency prices。

Successful InfoFi projects have often created an active and loyal KOL community that has grown through months of deep participation on the platform. The projecter can retain this group and shift it to a data-driven management model rather than start looking for creators from scratch. This is different from the tradition of relying on the continuous discovery of new people, Web2 MCN。

The MCN-style structure implies formal contractual relationships, rather than loosely selective participation. With accumulated historical data and established relationships, the platform could have a stronger impact on the Web3 ecosystem and thus negotiate better commercial transactions. For InfoFi, this will require a robust management system and data will become a core asset. This model will provide a lasting competitive advantage if KOL can be channelled through data precision and if it provides the projecter with a professional and data-driven GTM (market entry) strategy。

InfoFi 2.0

InfoFi's ecological collapse has left two profound lessons for Web3:

1. To centralize the irony:Many Web3 projects rely on a centralized X platform in depth, and a decision by X is sufficient to destroy the entire system。

2. Limitations of incentive design:WHILE INCENTIVE MECHANISMS HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN ATTRACTING A LARGE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS, THEY LACK EFFECTIVE METHODS TO CONTROL THE QUALITY OF CONTENT. THE PROLIFERATION OF WASTE CONTENT PROVIDES A CLEAR JUSTIFICATION FOR THE X PLATFORM TO INTERVENE。

Does that mean that InfoFi's way is over

Not exactly. A few found &ldquao; product convergence with market &rdquao; projects that may survive by changing business patterns. They can shift to multiplatform expansion, mastery planning or MCN management。

InfoFi 2.0 may become smaller, more manageable and more content-based. It will shift from an open, non-licensed platform to a highly audited professional network, in a form closer to an integrated marketing platform combining components such as local GTM efforts and offline advertising。

However, fundamental issues remain on the table. From♪ Tiger Research ♪HouseJoel MunIt was pointed out that once incentive mechanisms were introduced, participants inevitably looked for ways to exploit system loopholes, making equitable incentive structures extremely difficult to design. Such speculation can lead to low-quality content and a negative feedback cycle that could undermine the platform。

In addition, researchersDavidA more substantive question was raised: in his view, the value of InfoFi tokens was maintained, and in the past relied more on pledged airdrop expectations and belief in some narrative than on the actual performance of the platform. Today, both have lost relevance. This raises a direct question: why should investors buy InfoFi in the future

In order for InfoFi 2.0 to survive, these questions must be answered clearly and convincingly. Real sustainable development cannot be achieved if a project is not aligned with the interests of its currency holders。