Author: Ryan Yoon
Compiled by: TechFlow TechFlow
TechFlow Dive: In January 2026, a policy change by social media giant X (formerly Twitter) paralyzed the entire InfoFi (information finance) sector within just three days. The "earn money by posting" model, once spearheaded by Kaito, suffered a devastating blow for crossing the platform's red lines.
This article, written by Tiger Research, provides an in-depth analysis of why the InfoFi ecosystem appears so fragile under the control of centralized giants. From the founders' perspective, it outlines five feasible paths for project transformation in the post-InfoFi era. This is not only a retrospective on survival but also a profound reflection on the over-reliance of Web3 projects on Web2 infrastructure.
The full text is as follows:
Key Takeaways
- A single policy change by Platform X (formerly Twitter) caused the collapse of the entire InfoFi ecosystem within just three days. This profoundly exposed the structural risks inherent in Web3 projects' over-reliance on centralized platform infrastructure.
- The InfoFi project faces five options: shutting down, a bounty-based funding platform, a Korean-style sponsored blog model, multi-platform expansion, or an MCN-style KOL management model.
- The future of InfoFi may become smaller, more controlled, and more focused on quality. It will shift from a "permissionless model" that pursues scale to a "boutique model" that involves deep collaboration between vetted KOLs and project teams.
- Unresolved fundamental challenges: Even after completing the transformation, InfoFi still faces two core challenges: establishing a fair compensation system and proving the value of the tokens.
1. InfoFi, three days after its death
Caption: Source X (@nikitabier)
On January 15th, Nikita Bier, product lead for the X platform, posted a brief announcement stating that the platform would no longer allow applications that reward users for posting. For the InfoFi project, this marks its end.
According to Kaito founder Yu Hu, the events unfolded as follows:
- January 13: Kaito received an email from X hinting at a possible review and immediately requested clarification.
- January 14: X sent a formal legal notice, and Kaito submitted a legal response on the same day.
- January 15: Nikita Bier's post was made public. Kaito learned of the decision at the same time as everyone else.
The market's reaction was ruthless.
The price of $KAITO plummeted, drawing criticism from the community who felt the team failed to provide advance notice, despite the team's claim of being prepared for such situations. Kaito issued an emergency statement that evening explaining that they had received multiple legal notices from X in the past, all of which were resolved through new agreements, and therefore they had been awaiting further discussions this time as well.
Regardless of the explanation, one decision by X brought the InfoFi ecosystem to a halt. In just three days, an entire sector collapsed, simply because one company determined that the model was detrimental to platform quality.
2. If I were the founder of InfoFi today
Does this mean InfoFi is completely over? Projects like Kaito are already preparing for the next step. However, what's needed now is not to continue the old model, but to find different versions of InfoFi 2.0.
If I were the founder of an InfoFi project like Kaito, what other viable options would I have in reality? By outlining these "feasible paths," we can sketch out the outline of the next stage of InfoFi.
2.1 Complete Shutdown
This is the simplest option: shut down operations before running out of funds. In practice, many small and medium-sized projects may enter the "zombie" phase, essentially stagnant, occasionally posting some social media updates, and then disappearing completely.
Since the "product-market fit" (PMF) built around the X platform no longer exists, shutting down the project may be more realistic than burning money in search of a new direction. If the project holds usable data assets, it can sell them to other companies to recoup some of their value. Therefore, most small and medium-sized InfoFi projects will likely choose this path.
2.2 Bounty-Based Grant Platform
If the API for X can no longer be obtained, another option is to revert to the older model: KOLs apply to participate in the event directly, and their content is manually reviewed after submission, with rewards issued upon approval.
Caption: Source: Scribble. These types of platforms typically use a submit-then-review model.
Scribble is a prime example. Projects are funded as bounties, and KOLs create and submit content for review. This is a "submit and review" model, rather than real-time tracking.
This structure can be expanded into an open platform. The platform provides matchmaking and infrastructure, while individual projects manage their own activities. As more projects join, the KOL pool expands; and the growth of the KOL community provides projects with more options.
The downside lies in the uncertainty faced by KOLs. If their submissions are rejected, the time invested is wasted. After multiple failures, high-quality KOLs may leave the platform.
2.3 The Korean-style "Brand Blog" Model
Caption: Source: Revu
In South Korea, the brand-sponsored blog model follows a "screen first, manage later" approach, rather than post-approval. Organizations like Revu have been using this model for over a decade.
The process is straightforward: the project sets a target number of participants and launches the event; applicants submit their applications; and the project team selects KOLs based on factors such as follower count and past performance. Selected KOLs receive clear guidelines. After content is published, it is reviewed by the operations team. If it doesn't meet the standards, modifications are required; if the deadline is missed, penalties will be imposed.
In this model, KOLs avoid futile efforts. Once selected, compensation is almost guaranteed as long as the guidelines are followed. Unlike bounty systems, there is no risk of rejection after completion. From the project team's perspective, quality control is easier because only pre-screened participants are selected.
2.4 Multi-Platform Expansion
If X is no longer viable, the next option is to move to YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. Within the Web3 space, there's already a strong call to move away from the X platform. This view argues that real growth requires a shift from crypto-native-dominated platforms to channels with a broader audience.
The key advantage is the ability to reach a much larger potential user base than X. TikTok and Instagram are extremely influential in emerging markets such as Southeast Asia and Latin America. Each platform operates on a different algorithm, meaning the business can continue even if one channel is restricted.
The trade-off lies in operational complexity. On X, only text review is required; on YouTube, content length and production quality are paramount; on TikTok, the first three seconds determine success or failure; on Instagram, the execution and format quality of Stories must be evaluated. This requires platform-specific expertise or new internal tools. The API policies and data collection methods of different platforms also vary significantly. In effect, this is close to rebuilding from scratch.
Policy risks remain. Platforms can suddenly change their rules, just like X did. However, distributing activities across multiple platforms reduces reliance on a single platform. For large projects, this is the only option that offers significant scalability.
2.5 MCN-Style KOL Management
In the Web2 MCN (Multi-Channel Network) model, the brand value of KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders) is crucial. In Web3, this is even more decisive. Narrative drives capital flows, and opinion leaders (KOLs) wield enormous influence, capable of swaying token prices with a single sentence.
Successful InfoFi projects have cultivated an active and consistent community of Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs). These KOLs grow through months of engagement on the platform. Instead of recruiting creators from scratch, projects can retain this community and shift towards data-driven management, unlike traditional Web2 MCNs that rely on constantly discovering new talent.
The MCN-style structure implies formal contractual relationships, rather than loose, selective platform participation. Leveraging accumulated data and established relationships, platforms can exert greater influence within the Web3 ecosystem and negotiate better business terms.
For InfoFi projects, this requires a robust management system. Data becomes the core asset. If data can be used to guide KOLs and provide project teams with professional data-driven GTM (Get to Market) strategies, this model can offer a sustainable competitive advantage.
3.InfoFi 2.0
The collapse of InfoFi offers two lessons for the Web3 ecosystem:
- The irony of decentralization: Web3 projects rely on a centralized platform X, and a single decision by X can bring the entire system to a standstill.
- Limitations of the incentive design: The reward mechanism successfully attracted participants, but there were no effective means to control quality. The surge in spam provided X platform with a clear reason to intervene.
Caption: Source X (@nikitabier)
Does this mean InfoFi is completely finished?
Not entirely. A few projects that find a good product-market fit may survive by transforming their business model. They could shift towards multi-platform expansion, curated campaigns, or MCN-style management.
InfoFi 2.0 may become smaller, more controlled, and more quality-focused. It will shift from an open, permissionless platform to an audited network, moving closer to a comprehensive marketing platform that incorporates local GTM efforts such as offline advertising.
However, the core issues remain.
Joel Mun from Tiger Research House points out that once rewards are introduced, participants inevitably seek ways to exploit loopholes in the system, making it difficult to design a fair structure. This behavior leads to low-quality content, creating a negative feedback loop that could undermine the platform—a key issue facing the InfoFi project.
David raises a more fundamental question. He argues that the value of the InfoFi token has been sustained primarily not by platform performance, but by staking airdrops and belief in its narrative. Now, both have lost their correlation. This directly leads to the question: why would investors buy the InfoFi token?
For InfoFi 2.0 to survive, these questions need clear answers. A project cannot achieve sustainable development if it becomes disconnected from its token holders.
