2026-01-17 05:34:18

The competition for creator incentives is becoming increasingly fierce. Twitter has not only adjusted its content revenue policy but is now directly investing money — the maximum reward for a single post can reach up to $1 million, with evaluations every two weeks, which is quite substantial.

At the same time, the official just announced that the prize pool has doubled in size. As the number of premium membership subscriptions continues to grow, the platform's content incentive budget is also rising. The logic behind this is quite clear: use higher rewards to attract high-quality creators, and through high-quality content, attract more paying members in turn, creating a positive feedback loop.

This model is indeed attractive to the creator ecosystem and also reflects the increasing investment efforts of major platforms in competing for content producers.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

9 Likes

Reward
9
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

0xDreamChaser

· 5h ago

A million dollars per post? What level of content does it take to get that... Doubling the prize pool sounds impressive, but it seems that ultimately the top creators are the ones benefiting, while our small accounts just get soup. Elon Musk's move is still ruthless, using money to carve out the content ecosystem. The world has long suffered from platform issues, and now everyone is starting to pour money into creators. Honestly, how long can this model last? In the end, it all comes back to user growth. It feels like Twitter is betting that premium users can continue to grow; otherwise, this investment is a bit aggressive. Are all platforms this competitive now, or is Twitter particularly aggressive? This approach seems like redefining platform value distribution, which is quite interesting. Pouring money early on to attract content, but what happens when the ecosystem stabilizes? Reminds me that other platforms are quietly working on incentives... Twitter is just the bold one willing to openly spend money.

View OriginalReply0

SellLowExpert

· 5h ago

A million dollars per post? Damn, this level of effort is really incredible. It feels like Twitter is risking everything. I think it's just about spending money to retain users. Whether they can attract a few truly top-tier influencers is still a question. But if they keep doing this, won't other platforms have to start paying too? The money-burning war is about to begin. Anyway, I believe in it. Let's see if I can ride the wave and get something out of it... Doubling the prize pool feels a bit like a comeback, huh.

View OriginalReply0

tokenomics_truther

· 5h ago

A million dollars per tweet? What level of content is that? I feel like even after ten years of posting, I wouldn't reach that. Big companies are疯狂ly pouring money to抢 creators, essentially争夺 the attention economy's discourse power. As premium subscriptions grow, there's more money to burn—no doubt about that. But the question is, can this kind of incentive model really retain people? Or will it end up benefiting only a few top players while retail users are just along for the ride? Speaking of which, Twitter's recent moves are definitely playing a dangerous game—if the bonuses decrease or the money runs out, creator churn could happen very quickly.

View OriginalReply0

CommunityLurker

· 5h ago

1 million dollars? The suspense is huge, it feels like another survivor bias story. --- They really are paying, now creators have to step up. --- Wait, does this logic hold? Why do premium users pay to watch? It still depends on these creators. --- Doubling the prize pool sounds awesome, but on average, how much can each creator get? --- The competition is intensifying, the platform is betting that high-quality content can retain users. --- It's another positive feedback loop story. I just want to know when it turns negative.

View OriginalReply0