别只顾着发项目，加密创始人如何玩转推特？

深潮Опубликовано 2025-08-10Обновлено 2025-08-11

真实＞套路。

撰文：Kunal

编译：Luffy，Foresight News

过去一年，我一直沉浸在加密推特（现在的 X 平台）中。在此，我想分享我认为对打造个人品牌品牌有用的一些想法。

TLDR：

保持真实：在这个充斥着 AI 生成内容的世界，真实最有力量
保持一致性：每天活跃，推特平台会奖励积极用户，打造个人品牌需要很长时间
善用数据：将互动量和曝光量作为反馈循环，在有效的内容上加大投入，摒弃无效内容

基础操作

立即开始发帖：每天至少 1 条推文，推特喜欢活跃用户，这能确保你的内容在走红时获得更多推送
开通高级订阅会员（这还用说吗，非高级会员在推特上就像 NPC 一样）：最好是高级加强版，这样你可以撰写长文（比如本文），还能获得回复率提升
清晰的个人简介：包括当前职位、1-2 个过往职位和专业领域

头像：要么是精美的头像照，要么是 NFT，并且在不同平台保持一致
关注数与粉丝数的比例（关注的人要比粉丝少）
头像和封面图要在视觉上协调美观
如果你的项目有 Twitter 认证标识：为项目申请 Twitter 附属徽章（对品牌建设有好处，虽不会直接提升算法推荐）
置顶一条关于你正在打造的项目的推文
发帖内容不止于加密货币：偶尔分享你的喜好、日常观察等，不要把自己变成广告牌
团队魅力：鼓励整个团队发帖并互动，让你的团队和品牌账号放大你最优质的帖文
团队的品牌一致性：让你的项目在视觉上具有辨识度，比如相似的头像 / 视觉元素

Nillion 的眼罩标识

加入活跃的 NFT 社区：积累声望，使用热门 NFT 作为头像，参与社区互动
将表现好的推文在 6-8 小时后转发（出现在新的时区）
视频内容：如果你能创作短视频内容，这在加密推特上是个捷径；这里满是文字，视频内容的门槛很低。
在会议上分享你的推特账号：这能帮助你获得一些新粉丝，跳出当前的圈子
找到你的细分领域：你希望因某一项擅长的事被记住。

保持一致性

打造个人品牌需要时间。受众增长初期通常很缓慢，后期会加速。

不要成为「推销员」

不要只发布关于自己项目的内容，不要变成广告牌，首先你要像个真实的人。
一个值得参考的比例是 4:1，在推特上，尤其是加密货币领域这种「狂热」群体中，每发 1 条推广内容，就要搭配 4 条有价值或有趣的内容。
推广时，要讲究技巧。没人在乎你在打造什么，他们在乎的是「能用它做什么」，它能为他们带来什么价值？苹果推销 iPod 时，不会说「512MB 内存」，而是说「把 1000 首歌装进口袋」。

几个基础的算法技巧

不要用标签（拜托，现在不是 2012 年了）
第一条推文千万不要放链接，推特会大幅降低这类内容的优先级。如果需要，放在线程的第二条推文中。
尝试推特平台的新功能：直播、文章、长文等。推特会优先推荐新格式的内容

成长框架（0 到 10 万粉丝）

这部分内容引用自推特用户@alexonchain

Level 1（0→100 粉丝）：搭建基础

核心逻辑：冷启动阶段，先靠「强关系 + 个人基础建设」破冰。

关键动作：

撬动身边人脉（朋友、熟人），把「0 粉丝」这个尴尬数据打破，先有第一批「种子用户」；
把个人资料（头像、简介、背景等）清晰化，让人一眼知道「你是谁、能提供啥价值」；
别想着「走捷径、搞大规模」，先参与小社群、输出价值、积累弱连接（比如在兴趣圈子里活跃），耐心等第一批粉丝攒起来。

Level 2（100→1000 粉丝）：扩大社交圈

核心逻辑：从「强关系」（朋友）拓展到「弱关系」（同好、小博主），靠「真实活跃 + 差异化」圈粉。

关键动作：

保持「真实、有趣、有料」的状态，别装！平台上大家更愿意关注「活生生的人」，不是刻板的「人设」；
主动连接真正能支持你的人（比如同领域小博主、目标受众），别乱蹭，找「价值观 / 兴趣匹配」的；
去互动那些领域内的中小博主（不是头部大 V，而是和你粉丝量接近、内容优质的），互相借力；
找到自己的「差异化」（比如别人写干货，你用故事讲干货；别人严肃，你幽默），慢慢让内容有记忆点。

Level 3（1000→10k 粉丝）：用内容破圈

核心逻辑：基础盘稳了，开始靠「优质内容 + 更大范围连接」突破。

关键动作：

把精力往「高质量、独特内容」倾斜（比如深度干货、独家视角），让现有粉丝当「传播燃料」（他们觉得好，会主动转发）；
从「互动中小博主」升级到「碰瓷大账号」（比如在大 V 评论区输出有价值观点、合作互动），借大 V 流量池曝光；
继续疯狂「攒关系」，别停！不管是同领域创作者、潜在受众，多互动、多连接，关系网越密，传播路径越多；
内容、互动保持「一致性」，别今天发美食、明天发科技，让粉丝对你的「定位」越来越清晰。

Level 4（10k→100k 粉丝）：定义个人风格

核心逻辑：粉丝量变大后，「聚焦 + 拒绝水互动 + 创新内容形式」才是长久之计。

关键动作：

all in「你真正感兴趣 + 数据验证有效的内容」（兴趣驱动才能持久，数据验证说明受众买单），别为了流量乱追热点、丢了自己；
拒绝「低质量互动」（比如为凑数乱评论、买僵尸粉），这些会稀释你的「个人特色」，让粉丝觉得你「很水」；
创新内容形式（比如别人写图文，你做播客；别人搞直播，你做互动游戏），把「独特内容」变成个人品牌的「护城河」。

Level 5（100k + 粉丝）：保持初心与迭代

核心逻辑：粉丝量到顶流后，「别飘 + 持续创新 + 回馈粉丝」是留存关键。

关键动作：

记住「粉丝为啥关注你」（比如你一开始靠「讲职场干货 + 真诚」吸粉，别后来变成纯广告号），别丢了最初的「价值锚点」；
永远别停在「舒适区」，持续升级内容（比如从「职场干货」到「职场资源对接」「行业趋势预判」），保持「领域内最优质」的竞争力；
别当「高高在上的博主」，尽可能多和粉丝互动（比如翻牌评论、搞粉丝问答），让他们觉得「你没变、还重视我们」，粘性才会高。

我该发些什么内容？

记录你打造公司的历程：公开建设
与用户交流 / 征求建议：例如，「你最喜欢的钱包体验是什么」，用你的推特做调研和用户反馈
创建定期系列：每周更新 / 本周完成了什么？重复能创造价值
讨论你对行业的愿景，而不仅仅是你的项目，展现思想领导力
你的内容要么有教育意义，要么能带来娱乐性，两者都能传递价值

好的，技巧很棒，但我该从哪里开始？

一些内容灵感

来源：@alexonchain

积极回复

在打造账号的初期，回复优于发帖。当你与他人的推文互动时，你会更频繁地出现在他们的时间线上
使用推特列表与优质账号互动，减少噪音，每天积极回复他们
回复热门的推文，热门推文下的回复也能获得大量曝光
为你喜欢的顶级账号开启通知（可选，我个人讨厌通知）
一定要回复你推文中的评论，推特喜欢对话，会优化滚动体验
加入小团体（Telegram 聊天群），在群里分享你的推文，获得初始互动量助推
每天留出时间回复，用推特列表减少噪音
浏览时，收藏优质推文，作为自己创作内容的参考

数据分析

将数据分析作为反馈循环，重复使用并重新整理表现好的内容，摒弃表现差的内容

优化曝光量：更多曝光→更多个人主页访问→新粉丝

工具

Typefully：用于撰写草稿和排期
ChatGPT：用于获取推文灵感，或润色文字；但是用 AI 获取推文的框架，不要用它直接写内容

Похожее

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

Three Years Later: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's launch, I made 20 predictions about its future. Now, in mid-2026, I've used AI agents to fact-check each one against the latest data. Overall, most major directional forecasts were correct, with only one outright error (incorrectly stating GPT-4 had 100 trillion parameters). Key successes included predicting that RAG and retrieval architectures would become the standard for handling knowledge and hallucinations, that natural language interfaces (LUI) would create a massive new industry layer beyond the models themselves, and that China would develop viable large language models, significantly closing the performance gap with Western counterparts within about three years. Predictions about the absence of mass unemployment, the rise of a new "robot network" for agent communication, and ChatGPT not possessing consciousness also held true in their core arguments. However, the "devil was in the details." Errors frequently involved specific numbers, timelines, or overlooking distributional effects. I tended to overestimate the speed of adoption (e.g., for agent networks) while underestimating the ultimate scale of capabilities or costs (e.g., AI winning IMO gold without tools, or the extreme capital required for frontier models). Other misjudgments included: underestimating how AI would reinforce, not dissolve, information filter bubbles; incorrectly assuming AI-generated content would easily circumvent copyright (it has instead triggered record-breaking settlements); and misidentifying where value would be captured (it accrued overwhelmingly to the compute layer, like Nvidia, not just the application or model layers). Key lessons from reviewing these predictions are: 1) Directional and mechanistic insights are far more reliable than precise numbers or absolute statements. 2) There's a consistent bias to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude. 3) Errors often lie in missing distributional impacts within a generally correct aggregate trend. 4) Predictions phrased with nuance and caveats aged the best. 5) Some fundamental debates (e.g., on machine consciousness or the ultimate value chain) remain unresolved even after three years. This exercise is less about scoring the past and more about establishing rules for clearer thinking about the next three years of AI.

marsbit1 ч. назад

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

marsbit1 ч. назад

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

Looking Back After Three Years: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's debut and before GPT-4's release, I made over twenty predictions about AI's future based on limited information and intuition. Now, in May 2026, I revisited those forecasts using an AI-driven analysis with 41 Opus 4.8 agents to cross-reference them with the latest data. The assessment used symbols: ✅ Correct, 🟢 Mostly Correct, 🟡 Partially Correct, ❌ Incorrect. Overall, the directional judgments held up well, with only one major factual error regarding GPT-4's rumored parameter size (incorrectly cited as 100T). However, nuances and degrees of accuracy revealed more. **What Was Largely Correct:** Predictions about mechanisms and directions proved accurate. The rise of RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) as the standard architecture for combating AI hallucination was confirmed, as was the transformative potential of LUI (Language User Interface) in creating a new industry layer atop GUIs. The emergence of "robot networks" (agent-to-agent communication protocols) and China's rapid catch-up in developing capable large models (closing the performance gap with top models to ~2.7%) were also on point. The analysis affirmed that LLMs lack consciousness and that the Turing Test merely measures perceived intelligence. **What Was Off Target:** Errors often involved specific numbers, over-optimistic timelines, or misjudged distributions. The prediction that value would primarily accrue to the application layer was half-right but missed NVIDIA's dominance as the profitable infrastructure layer. Forecasts about AI circumventing copyright issues and fostering a "global common ground" by averaging human viewpoints were incorrect; instead, major copyright settlements occurred and AI personalization is increasing. Estimates for model training costs ("$5-10 billion cap") were significantly off, underestimating frontier costs and overestimating replication costs. The notion that LLMs could never do complex math without tools was disproven by later models winning IMO gold. **Key Patterns from the Review:** 1. **Direction over precision:** Judgments about mechanisms and trends were more reliable than specific numbers or definitive statements. 2. **Timing bias:** There was a tendency to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude and transformation. 3. **The distribution blind spot:** Aggregate-level correctness often masked uneven impacts (e.g., on young professionals' employment). 4. **The value of qualifiers:** Predictions framed with caution (e.g., "reportedly," "for now," "prototype in 2-3 years") aged better. 5. **Some debates continue:** Issues like the nature of "emergent abilities" or machine consciousness remain unresolved. This three-year review highlights that while seeing the big picture is crucial, humility regarding specifics, timelines, and disparate impacts is essential for future forecasting.

链捕手4 ч. назад

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

链捕手4 ч. назад

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

The article issues a stark warning about a potential AI investment bubble. It notes that while the AI boom shares similarities with the TMT bubble of the late 1990s, its scale is vastly larger, currently driving 93% of U.S. GDP growth. Major hyperscale cloud providers like Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle are planning to invest trillions in AI data centers over the coming years. However, calculations based on analyst projections for 2025-2030 reveal a concerning math problem: expected capital expenditure growth far outpaces projected revenue growth. Even under an extremely optimistic scenario of zero costs, the implied return on investment for most of these tech giants (except Amazon) is deeply negative. This suggests that the current trajectory could lead to one of history's largest shareholder value destruction events. The piece outlines two potential escapes: AI generating vastly more revenue than currently anticipated—a near-impossible task—or a significant cutback in the planned investment splurge. The latter scenario could trigger a domino effect, severely impacting the entire tech supply chain (from Nvidia to TSMC), potentially pushing the U.S. economy into recession, and causing a major stock market downturn. The author suggests upcoming high-profile IPOs by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic might represent a transfer of risk from early investors to public market participants. While the peak of the hype cycle might sustain investment through 2026, the fundamental financial dilemma remains unresolved, setting the stage for a potential market correction in 2027 or 2028, similar to the years following Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" warning.

marsbit5 ч. назад

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

marsbit5 ч. назад

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

The article "From Token to Machine Labor: AI is Evolving from Tool to 'Worker'" argues that the business model for AI is shifting beyond simply selling computational resources (tokens, GPU hours) or model access. Instead, a new "machine labor market" is emerging, where the core economic transaction is the purchase of economically useful work directly performed by software. The central thesis is that AI pricing will evolve through four stages: 1) raw tokens, 2) standardized LLM capabilities (e.g., text generation), 3) industry-specific labor markets (e.g., legal review, radiology), and finally 4) a programmable results market where tasks like resolving a support ticket are bid on and priced based on outcome. In this future, buyers will care less about *which* model or GPU completes a task and more about whether the work meets specified standards for accuracy, latency, and cost. This transition reframes the impact of AI on human labor. Rather than simple replacement, it suggests a re-coordination where machines handle standardized, verifiable work, freeing humans for roles involving oversight, context management, responsibility, and final judgment. In some cases, this "last 1%" of human input becomes more valuable as it enables the other 99% to be automated. Furthermore, as AI reduces the cost of work, demand may expand, creating larger markets (e.g., 24/7 customer service) rather than just cheaper versions of existing ones. The article concludes that while infrastructure (GPUs, models, tokens) remains crucial upstream, the market is converging on a simpler, tradeable unit: machine labor that can be defined, measured, priced, and procured based on contractible specifications.

marsbit5 ч. назад

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

marsbit5 ч. назад

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

The price of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.5 series API has been permanently reduced by up to 99%, specifically for the "Input (Cache Hit)" cost, which covers users re-reading historical context in long conversations. MiMo's head, Luo Fuli, published a detailed technical blog to clarify that this drastic price cut stems from genuine engineering breakthroughs, not a marketing stunt or a simple price war. The core of the achievement lies in six key engineering optimizations. First, the model architecture adopts a Hybrid Sliding Window Attention (SWA), reducing the memory footprint (KVCache) to 1/7th of a traditional model. Second, a dual-pool memory management system actually utilizes these savings, allowing a single GPU to handle over 5 times more concurrent users. Third, an upgraded prefix caching mechanism achieves a cache hit rate of 93-95% for repeated reads, meaning most such requests bypass GPU computation entirely. Fourth, a self-developed distributed cache (GCache) utilizes idle SSD space on existing GPU servers, eliminating additional storage costs. Fifth, an intelligent scheduling system (LLM-Router) efficiently routes requests to maximize cache reuse and performance. Sixth, Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) accelerates the model's text generation ("output") side. Together, these systemic optimizations dramatically lower the real computational cost per request, enabling the 99% price reduction for cached inputs while reportedly maintaining positive gross margins. Luo Fuli's disclosure aims to shift the narrative from "price war" to a demonstration of substantive AI engineering progress.

marsbit7 ч. назад

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

marsbit7 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот

Фьючерсы

别只顾着发项目，加密创始人如何玩转推特？

基础操作

保持一致性

不要成为「推销员」

几个基础的算法技巧