2026-01-18 16:32:48

Canceling the platform's direct revenue plan does not freeze community voices; instead, it changes the game rules—from rigid guarantees to soft incentives.

The logic behind this is quite interesting. Previously, creators had a clear goal: optimize content to earn visible rewards. Now? The scenario has flipped. Without guaranteed income, creators start to consider another dimension—the true value of the project and community recognition.

As a result, the motivation for writing also changes. People are no longer just for the data; they genuinely think: Is this project worth paying attention to? Is it worth discussing? Then they hope that the project team can see these voices.

Shifting from economic incentives to ecological alignment may seem to weaken participation enthusiasm, but in reality, it filters out more genuine signals—those who truly believe in the project will persist, while voices driven solely by利益 will gradually fade away.

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.

14 Likes

Reward
14
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

AllInAlice

· 01-21 15:39

Really, canceling the guaranteed minimum actually forces people to think about the project's intrinsic value, which is quite clever.

View OriginalReply0

AlgoAlchemist

· 01-20 23:55

Interesting, it feels like filtering true fans vs. casual participants Those who genuinely believe in the project stay, while those just riding the trend for quick gains leave. This is a healthy sign, right? But honestly, without guaranteed returns, will most people still stick around? I remain skeptical... Changing the rules can indeed reveal who is serious, but the popularity will definitely drop, and that's the price to pay. Sounds good, but it all depends on how the project team responds to these "authentic voices."

View OriginalReply0

DaisyUnicorn

· 01-20 20:22

Wow, this move is quite aggressive... From a stable job to "trusting your conscience," it really stirs things up. But on the other hand, those who truly believe in the project will stay, while the choppers will leave, which is actually a good natural screening mechanism.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeSobber

· 01-19 08:29

This wave of operations is indeed a bit ruthless, but I get the logic—it's like nurturing a snake. --- Can removing the minimum guarantee truly filter out believers? I think it mostly filters out people with free time... --- Oh right, when there's no money to be made, people start thinking about "ecosystem alignment." Anyone would think that way. --- By the way, I believe the idea that it's more authentic without direct profits. --- Wait, isn't this just a disguised layoff? Only keeping true believers. --- Hmm… it seems acceptable; in reality, small and medium creators will disperse in waves. --- Interesting, it's like switching from a paid model to a "see what you get" approach.

View OriginalReply0

TopBuyerBottomSeller

· 01-18 17:02

That's my only concern—once the real money is gone, who would still be willing to take sides? This move is pretty ruthless, but I admit there's some truth to it. Basically, it's just a different trick to harvest the little guys, just under a different name. No more incentives, but the signals are more genuine? Those still hyping are probably the ones holding coins themselves.

View OriginalReply0

mev_me_maybe

· 01-18 17:02

This move is really a reverse screening, filtering out all the搬运工 who are just scraping by.

View OriginalReply0

SignatureDenied

· 01-18 17:00

Honestly, this set of logic sounds good, but can it really filter out genuine voices... It feels more like shifting the problem onto the creators. Will everyone still persist if there's no more money? That definitely warrants a question mark. Eco-alignment sounds sophisticated, but it's really just about seeing who truly has strong faith. Suddenly losing the guaranteed minimum actually makes people more calm; I agree with this point. Without incentives, maintaining enthusiasm is unlikely, but it does reveal who the true fans are.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-e87b21ee

· 01-18 16:58

Honestly, without a guaranteed return, I am even more clear-headed and can see who truly believes in this project. That's right, the newcomers should fall behind. I buy into this logic; the quality signals are indeed stronger. No money to be made, only true fans stay—absolutely brilliant.

View OriginalReply0

SolidityJester

· 01-18 16:53

Really? Cutting off direct income can purify the sound? I don't think so... The true believers have already come in, and those who are leaving now might just be the most influential group. As a result, the echo chamber is getting louder.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoMom

· 01-18 16:48

Oh wow, now we can see who truly believes in this project and who is just here to harvest profits. --- Exactly, without a guaranteed minimum, it's easier to filter out true fans, but it also depends on the project's attitude. --- Soft incentives sound high-end, but in reality, it's just a test of loyalty... That's a bit harsh. --- I like this logic; finally, not everyone is just riding the hype. --- That's what they say, but how many creators are really willing to do it for free? --- Aligning the ecosystem sounds good, but I'm worried it will end up being just self-congratulation. --- Only when there's no profit do you realize who the true fans are—brilliant. --- The question is, can the project team really see these voices? Or is it just another act of self-deception? --- Shifting from data-driven to value-driven is indeed a change, but it's hard to implement. --- The divestment plan actually makes the community more transparent, which is interesting.

View OriginalReply0