Original Author: Fairy, ChainCatcher
Original Editor: TB, ChainCatcher
Is it "Yap-to-Earn" or "Earn-to-Leave"?
In the Crypto world, "attention" is gradually becoming an asset that can be priced. Kaito, backed by top-tier capitals like Dragonfly and Sequoia, has emerged as a star project in InfoFi and was once seen as an innovator in "information financialization".
However, after just a few months, more and more voices have begun to question its algorithmic mechanism and ecological impact. Kaito wanted to capture users' attention with AI algorithms, but now, the community seems to have lost patience first.
Is the Creator Ecosystem Being Destroyed?
The issue of content quality has been controversial since Kaito launched its "Yap-to-Earn" mechanism. The X platform is flooded with similar-styled "industry in-depth analysis" posts, which appear professional on the surface with technical terms and structured analysis, but are actually hollow, with superficial interactions, inefficient, repetitive, and created solely for earning rewards.
Community member @0x cryptoHowe once described Kaito's communication mechanism as a "Crypto version of elevator advertising". He pointed out: "Kaito's long-tail traffic effect is essentially like elevator ads, constantly repeating content in a closed space and pushing streams at different time periods." For the audience, this is indeed a method of quick memorization and exposure, but problems arise: when the platform is occupied by "homogeneous content", and KOLs are algorithmically pushed to repeatedly produce content, the result is an information closed loop - like being trapped in an elevator that never stops playing ads, unable to access truly valuable new content.
Meanwhile, Kaito's mechanism has been widely questioned for "freeloading" on mid-tier creators' traffic. Crypto KOL @connectfarm1 pointed out that some mid-tier accounts, whose single content was originally worth at least 500 U, are willing to accept far lower returns for Kaito. This strategy not only depresses the real value of content but also forces creators to express themselves at only 50% or even less of their potential.
Kaito may be simplifying the evaluation criteria for content creation, binding creators into a system driven by "algorithms" and "scores". As community user @0x Believer said: "There are many criteria for judging KOLs, but Kaito's emergence has made it somewhat singular".
Team Frequently Makes Mistakes
Besides mechanism controversies, the Kaito team has also experienced some operational hiccups recently.
On March 16, Kaito AI and its founder Yu Hu's X account were hacked. Team member Sandra posted on X, saying, "The attacker chose to launch the attack during the deep night in Yu Hu's time zone, controlling the account while he was asleep".
Then on April 27, founder Yu Hu posted that the platform accidentally backfilled a new algorithm over the past 12 months, causing users to see a longer time window, and the front-end data appeared incomplete.
Although these two incidents did not cause serious consequences, the consecutive minor flaws have raised concerns about its stability.
The Algorithm Controversy of "Relationship Emphasis"
Kaito's core selling point is its AI-driven content scoring algorithm, claiming to identify valuable Web3 content. However, as users delve deeper, this algorithm has frequently sparked controversy.
User @Jessethecook69 reached the global ninth and Chinese first place on the Kaito Yapper list within just 24 hours with only three "borderline" contents. This inevitably raises the question: Is this algorithm truly filtering valuable information?
Many users point out that Kaito gives low weight to reading volume, with the algorithm more focused on interaction performance between high-influence accounts. Worse, some Inner Crypto Twitter (ICT) have started to "huddle together", further amplifying this algorithmic bias.
Crypto KOL @sky_gpt directly stated that Kaito's algorithm is essentially designed to occupy the market of institutions and top KOLs, severely damaging the ecosystem of ordinary creators. He pointed out that a 30w in-depth content he wrote received almost the same score as a 2k advertising post a project paid for, while non-Kaito related content is systematically suppressed in the algorithm. "The top 50 KOLs on the list are eating well, while others have almost no way to grow," he wrote, "Kaito is cutting off the path for new people to rise".
When new creators are trapped by the algorithm's invisible ceiling, and creators are forced to cater to algorithmic preferences, we can't help but ask: Is an AI-driven content platform reshaping the information order, or merely replicating old power logic?
