InfoFi 为何不香了?

marsbitОпубліковано о 2025-09-04Востаннє оновлено о 2025-09-05

如果我们已迎来 InfoFi 时代的终结,或是正一步步逼近这个节点,我并不会感到意外。

自 InfoFi 兴起以来,许多人借此赚取了可观的收益,有人累计赚了 5 位数,有人甚至赚到了 6 位数。但如今,一些信号值得我们高度警惕。


门槛规则变更

严格来说,我并不认为 Kaito 这次升级完全是件坏事,它或许能有效杜绝大量账号用 AI 生成劣质内容 「刷量」 的行为,同时提升内容质量。

但升级后,不仅小号受到冲击,许多大号也未能幸免。这导致大量依赖 Kaito 的用户选择离开,因为升级后,他们几乎没有机会再通过平台赚到钱。

 Capital Launchpad

对此,一些项目方选择取消门槛,以吸引小号入驻。这恰恰说明:在大多数情况下,小号群体是至关重要的。

我的看法是:Kaito 似乎对这次升级的方向感到困惑,而且很多项目方显然不喜欢这种 「门槛限制」。不过不可否认的是,在过去几个月里,Kaito 的表现一直相当出色。


代币分配方案拉胯

对于内容创作者(yappers)而言,如今常规的 0.5%-1% 代币分配比例已远远不够,因为这些代币上线时的估值往往很低。

早期,有些账号通过 1-2 个月的推广活动就能赚到 4-5 位数收益;而现在,即便是参与 3-6 个月的活动,也只能赚 3-4 位数,这让很多人感到心灰意冷。

甚至连头部账号,即便产出了优质内容,也很难赚到可观的 4 位数收益。

这对依赖 InfoFi 的创作者来说为何是坏消息?在 InfoFi 兴起之前,许多创作者作为品牌大使或 KOL 推广内容,就能获得不错的收入。而现在 Kaito 上的项目方给出的报酬,根本无法与外部合作相提并论 。鉴于这一事实,越来越多创作者选择离开 InfoFi 平台,也就不足为奇了。


「Capital Launchpad」 主导地位凸显

7 月 22 日,Kaito 的 「Capital Launchpad」正式上线,首个上线项目是 Espresso,随后有更多项目陆续入驻。

 Capital Launchpad

对 Kaito 而言,这无疑是个不错的产品,但我也有几点担忧:

  • 通过 Kaito 首次代币发行的项目,至今没有一个在公开市场上线;
  • 这些项目均未公布上线日期;
  • 大多数项目的估值过高,且代币解锁方案对投资者不友好。

我的补充观点:Kaito 最初是专为 InfoFi 打造的平台,后来才决定增加额外的平台功能(如 Launchpad),这本身是很棒的尝试。但最近,越来越多项目选择入驻 「Capital Launchpad」,而非参与 「创作者排行榜」。对于一个 InfoFi 平台来说,这种趋势显然不太乐观。

不过,这只是我观察到的明显现象,似乎没多少人对此提出质疑。


项目方更倾向于与 KOL 直接合作,而非通过 Kaito 平台

这一点很明显:项目方已不再那么热衷于参与 InfoFi 合作了。

最近,Zachxbt 发布了一个谷歌表格,列出了一批从某项目方获得报酬的账号。我提及此事并非因为惊讶,而是因为这些报酬金额相当可观,尤其是与 Kaito 「创作者排行榜」 上的项目相比。

 Capital Launchpad

我相信,这已经让不少人意识到:除了 InfoFi,还有很多赚钱的方式。而人性的现实是 「想尽办法多赚钱」,因此我认为这对 Kaito 构成了直接竞争。

Пов'язані матеріали

Bankless Co-founder: Why I Sold All My ETH

Author David Hoffman, founder of Bankless, explains his decision to sell all his ETH, despite being a prominent figure in the Ethereum ecosystem. He clarifies that his move is not a bearish take on Ethereum itself, which he remains highly optimistic about as a network. His core argument is that the "ETH is money" thesis, which he helped popularize, has largely played out. Hoffman argues that ETH has achieved the market valuation it deserves based on Ethereum's current success and competitive position. He details several reasons for this view. First, the path for ETH to become global money required nearly flawless execution and sustained dominance across Ethereum's entire technical and social stack—a coordination challenge he now believes had a narrower window for success than anticipated. Second, market data shows a strong correlation between L1 chain activity/fees and the price of its native asset; Ethereum's fee dominance has been challenged by competitors like Solana. Third, the "strong version" of crypto (decentralized, native crypto economies) that ETH's monetary thesis relied upon has struggled to maintain a positive mainstream narrative and stable adoption beyond a brief period. Finally, Ethereum's architecture as a "giver"—providing secure block space and tokenization capabilities at cost to L2s and applications—means it doesn't capture premium value directly. Its rollup-centric roadmap further directs most profits to L2s and applications ("fat app theory"). In conclusion, Hoffman believes the opportunity for ETH to be revalued significantly upward as money has diminished. He sold not because ETH will fail, but because its monetary thesis has matured, and he seeks to allocate capital to other opportunities he finds more compelling.

链捕手36 хв тому

Bankless Co-founder: Why I Sold All My ETH

链捕手36 хв тому

From Issuer to Infrastructure Owner: Circle's Arc Strategy and the Fatal Gap in the GENIUS Act

Circle raised $222 million for its proprietary Layer-1 blockchain, Arc, positioning itself not just as a stablecoin issuer but as the owner of the settlement infrastructure USDC relies on. This move, backed by investors like BlackRock and Apollo, highlights a significant structural conflict unaddressed by the GENIUS Act of 2025. While the act focuses on stablecoin reserves and issuer oversight, it remains silent on the market structure implications of an issuer controlling the underlying network—a scenario akin to a currency issuer also owning the payment rails. Traditionally, financial regulations separate issuers from settlement infrastructure to ensure neutrality. With Arc, Circle gains control over transaction ordering, fees, and network rules, potentially favoring USDC over competitors. The article argues that this creates a permanent structural temptation, even if no abuse occurs. The solution lies in applying established market infrastructure principles: mandating neutral transaction ordering, transparent fee schedules, and governance separated from Circle’s commercial interests. The current pre-mainnet phase offers a critical window for regulators to establish these rules before Arc becomes entrenched. Once operational, enforcing changes would be costly and disruptive. The core question remains: should a regulated stablecoin issuer be allowed to own the settlement network its competitors must use? The GENIUS Act doesn’t answer this, but Circle’s Arc strategy makes it urgent.

marsbit41 хв тому

From Issuer to Infrastructure Owner: Circle's Arc Strategy and the Fatal Gap in the GENIUS Act

marsbit41 хв тому

What Are the Key Variables Determining the AI Bull Market?

Title: What Determines the AI Bull Market? Key Variables Revealed Despite rising oil prices above $100/barrel, persistent inflation, and fragile Fed rate cut expectations—a traditionally hostile environment for high-valuation tech stocks—the AI sector continues to drive the market to new highs. According to analysts, the current AI boom is in a phase of "rational fervor": while bubbles exist, they are not yet out of control. The crucial shift is the emergence of Agentic AI, which is evolving from an assisting tool (Copilot) to an autonomous execution tool (Autopilot), creating a clearer commercial path from investment to revenue. This shift accelerates Token consumption and inference computing demand while boosting revenue forecasts for leading firms. The market is now rewarding capital expenditure as it transforms from a burden into a competitive moat, supporting hardware chains like GPUs, optical modules, and storage. However, valuations have already priced in growth expectations for 2027-2028. The forward P/E ratio for the "Magnificent Seven" tech giants is about 35x, compared to 25x for the rest of the S&P 500. This premium implies AI adoption must occur 5 to 8 times faster than past technological revolutions—a scenario with little room for error. The sustainability of the AI bull market hinges on three key variables: 1. **Short-term liquidity shocks**: Risks include sustained high oil prices, resurgent inflation, rising interest rates, and potential unwinding of the yen carry trade. The critical question is whether the upward revision speed of Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) can outpace the rise in interest rates. 2. **Mid-term industry realization**: Can the actual pace of AI adoption and commercialization match the current lofty valuations? Historically, general-purpose technology revolutions follow a non-linear path with periods of acceleration and deceleration. 3. **Long-term structural constraints**: These include energy and power grid limitations, employment displacement and consumer purchasing power, social acceptance and potential backlash, and potential hardware technology breakthroughs that could disrupt current supply chains. While the long-term prospects for AI remain optimistic with potential for significant productivity gains, the stock market's pricing depends not just on the vision but on the actual speed of realization amid these growing constraints. The direction is clear, but the pace of execution will determine whether the bubble remains controlled or spirals out of control.

marsbit41 хв тому

What Are the Key Variables Determining the AI Bull Market?

marsbit41 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片