Is there any chance for Kaito?

A recent change to X platform API policy has led to the collapse of the InfoFi ecosystem. If I were the founder of Kaito, what options would I have now? Key Takeaways X's policy change caused the collapse of the InfoFi ecosystem within three days, exposing the structural limitations of relying on centralized platforms. InfoFi projects face five options: shutdown, a bounty-based funding platform, a Korean-style sponsored blog model, multi-platform expansion, or an MCN-style KOL management model. InfoFi 2.0 is likely to evolve into a smaller, more controlled model, shifting from permissionless scaling to collaboration between vetted KOLs and projects. Two fundamental challenges remain: establishing a fair compensation system and proving the value of the token. InfoFi Collapses in Three Days On January 15th, Nikita Bier, the product lead for the X platform, posted a short message stating that applications offering rewards in exchange for posting on the platform would no longer be allowed. For the InfoFi project, this marked its end. According to Kaito founder Yu Hu, the events unfolded as follows: January 13th: Kaito received an email from Platform X indicating a possible review and requesting immediate clarification. January 14th: Platform X sent a formal legal notice, and Kaito submitted a legal response on the same day. January 15th: Nikita Bier's post became public, and Kaito, along with others, learned of the decision. The market reaction was ruthless. The KAITO token price plummeted, and the community criticized the team for failing to provide prior notice, despite their claim of being prepared for the situation. Kaito issued an emergency statement that evening, explaining that it had previously received legal notices from Platform X and resolved the issue through a new agreement, therefore it was awaiting further discussion this time as well. Regardless of the explanation, one decision by Platform X has brought the InfoFi ecosystem to a halt. In just three days, an entire category collapsed, destroyed by a company's judgment that it had damaged the platform's quality. If I were the founder of Kaito, would this mean the end of InfoFi? Projects like Kaito are already preparing for the next step. However, what is needed now is not a continuation of past models, but a different version of InfoFi 2.0. If I were the founder of an InfoFi project like Kaito, realistically, what options do I have today? By examining viable paths forward, we can begin to outline what the next phase of InfoFi might look like. Shutting Down: This is the simplest option – cease operations before funds run out. In reality, many small and medium-sized projects are likely to enter a "zombie" phase, essentially inactive, only occasionally posting on social media before disappearing completely. Since the product-market fit built around Platform X has disappeared, shutting down may be more realistic than burning money to find a new direction. If the project has usable data assets, it can sell them to other companies to recoup some value. Therefore, most small and medium-sized InfoFi projects are likely to choose this path. Bounty-Based Grant Platforms: If API access to Platform X is no longer available, one option is to revert to an older model. KOLs directly apply for events, submit content for manual review, and receive rewards upon approval.

Source: Scribble

Scribble is a representative example. Projects post funded tasks as bounties, KOLs create and submit content for review, and then receive rewards. This is a "submission-review" model, rather than real-time tracking.

This structure can scale as an open platform. The platform provides mediation and infrastructure, while individual projects manage their own activities. As more projects participate, the KOL pool expands. As the KOL base grows, projects gain more choices.

The downside is that it introduces uncertainty to KOLs.

If the submitted content is rejected, the time invested is wasted. After multiple failures, the KOL is likely to leave the platform. Sponsored Blog Model South Korea's sponsored blog model follows a "select first, manage later" approach, rather than a submission-after-approval process. Organizations like Revu have been using this model for over a decade. The process is simple: the project sets a target number of participants and launches the campaign. Applicants register, and the project 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 operations staff. If it does not meet the standards, revisions will be required, and penalties will be imposed if the deadline is missed. In this model, KOLs avoid wasting their time. Once selected, compensation is essentially guaranteed as long as the guidelines are followed. Unlike bounty-based systems, there is no risk of rejection after work is completed. From a project perspective, quality control is easier because only pre-screened participants are selected. Multi-Platform Expansion If Platform X is no longer viable, the next option is to move to YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. Within Web3, there is already a strong push to expand beyond Platform X. The view is that real growth requires moving away from platforms dominated by crypto-native users and towards channels with a broader audience. The main advantage is access to a much larger potential user base than Platform X. Platforms like TikTok and Instagram are particularly influential in emerging markets such as Southeast Asia and Latin America. Each platform also runs different algorithms, allowing operations to continue even if one channel is restricted. The cost is operational complexity. On platform X, only text-based posts need to be reviewed. On YouTube, content length and production quality matter. On TikTok, the first three seconds determine performance. On Instagram, story execution and format quality must be evaluated. This requires platform-specific expertise or new internal tools. API policies and data collection methods also vary by platform. In effect, it's close to rebuilding from scratch. Policy risks remain. Platforms might suddenly change their rules, like X did. However, distributing activities across multiple platforms reduces reliance on a single platform. For larger projects, this is the only option that provides meaningful scalability. MCN-style KOL Management In the Web2 MCN model, the brand value of KOLs is important. In Web3, this is even more decisive. Narrative drives capital, and opinion leaders wield excessive influence. A single comment can affect token prices. Successful InfoFi projects have cultivated active and aligned KOL communities. These KOLs grow through months of engagement on the platform. Projects can retain this community and shift towards data-driven governance, rather than relying on the continuous discovery of new creators, as traditional Web2 MCNs do, which require finding creators from scratch. An MCN-style structure implies formal contracts, rather than loose, voluntary platform participation. With accumulated data and established relationships, the platform can exert greater influence in the Web3 ecosystem and negotiate better deals. For InfoFi projects, this requires a robust management system. Data becomes the core asset. This model can provide a sustainable competitive advantage if KOLs can be guided through data and the project can be provided with a professional, data-driven GTM (Go to Market) strategy. InfoFi 2.0's collapse left two lessons for the Web3 ecosystem. The irony of decentralization: Web3 projects relied on the centralized X platform, and a single decision by X was enough to crash the system. Limitations of incentive design: Rewards successfully attracted participants, but there was no effective way to control quality. The increase in spam gave X platform a clear reason to intervene.

Source: X(@nikitabier)

Does this mean the end of InfoFi?

Not entirely. A few projects that have found a product-market fit are likely to survive by changing their format. They can move towards multi-platform expansion, curated events, or MCN-style management.

InfoFi 2.0 may be smaller, more controlled, and more quality-focused.

InfoFi 2.0 may be smaller, more controlled, and more quality-oriented.

It will shift from an open, permissionless platform to a censored network, becoming more like an integrated marketing platform that combines local GTM efforts with components such as offline advertising. However, fundamental problems remain. Joel Mun of Tiger Research House points out that once rewards are introduced, participants inevitably seek ways to exploit system vulnerabilities, making it difficult to design a fair structure. This behavior leads to low-quality content and creates a negative feedback loop that can undermine the platform, a critical issue for the InfoFi project. David raises an even more fundamental question. He argues that the value of the InfoFi token is supported less by platform performance and more by staking airdrops and a belief in the narrative. Now, both have lost their relevance. This raises a direct question: why would investors buy InfoFi tokens? These questions need clear answers for InfoFi 2.0 to survive. A project cannot be sustainable if it becomes disconnected from its token holders.