Paul also participated in @cookiedotfun's activities early on, and initially, he was also crazily producing related content. However, as the score increased slowly, his motivation diminished. Of course, you can also say that Paul didn't score high enough to get an airdrop, so he is here complaining, which is akin to sour grapes. In fact, if you are in the Chinese zone, you would also feel that the score increase is indeed very slow currently.

Core Parameter: Mindshare

The most important parameter throughout InfoFi is Mindshare. In the InfoFi ecosystem, it analyzes social media, on-chain data, and news sources through AI and big data technology (like Kaito AI) to calculate the discussion intensity and influence of a project or topic, reflecting the community's level of interest in a specific crypto project, meme coin, or emerging trend.

So how is this reflected by users on Twitter? Users output content on Twitter, attracting likes, comments, and shares. Frequent interactions with the community enhance exposure, strengthening the brand or project's impression in users' minds.

So Mindshare is the most important, but if no one understands the core mechanism, then if you can't beat them, join them. Since I don't understand the mechanism, I'll write more and refer to more.

First Sin: Only good, no bad.

When you open Twitter and look at projects related to @cookiedotfun, you see that they are basically all positive, highlighting various advantages, but no one mentions the risks. However, once an airdrop is not available, people start analyzing various drawbacks. For example, many bloggers about @sparkdotfi don’t even understand what YT is yet start writing tutorials, teaching everyone how to play and stake. I want to ask, doesn't it hurt your heart? YT is essentially gambling; fans trust you, yet you treat your fans like leeks. But for these influencers, they profit because they can earn points to get subsequent airdrops.

Suggestion: @cookiedotfun should first screen the projects to reduce user risk, rather than ignoring the asset risks of users for the sake of their platform's traffic. Provide additional rewards to users who dare to point out project risks, so that a hundred flowers can bloom and the platform can go further.

Second Sin: Data inflation without any stop.

In the last project, everyone resorted to any means to compete for the top 25, inflating traffic and linking to yellow promotions. Of course, there were later prohibitions on responding under yellow promotions. I think here @cookiedotfun is not so much trying to stop such behavior as being afraid; afraid of what? Afraid that Twitter officials will find him because of these related tweets, and he needs to be relatively legal, more for himself.

Suggestion: For the early rankings, you can still rank in the current way, but when the final rankings are released later, create user profiles for the top N (this ranking is a range, for example, selecting the top 25, with a range set at 1-100) users. Why do we need to do this later? Because there are too many users in the early stage, and there's no need to conduct large-scale user profiling; only real user data can earn rewards.

Third Sin: The appearance of sensitive vocabulary reduces Mindshare.

As mentioned above, Mindshare is the most important aspect of the entire system. Therefore, if sensitive vocabulary appears, it is necessary to reduce the Mindshare of the related personnel. So, what counts as sensitive vocabulary? For example, words like mutual likes, mutual reviews, and other inducements appearing in tweets are similar to inflating traffic.

Suggestion: This can be referenced from @binancezh @yingbinance; when they do article rewards, they have a related rule against inducements.

Fourth Sin: Chaotic scoring.

If you remember, we all experienced a day when writing a dozen characters or a paragraph scored more than long essays. It started in the Chinese zone, and now it has moved to the English zone, with no unified standard.

Suggestion: Minimum word count, etc., because a project cannot be explained in just a few sentences. Some influencers only complained a couple of times and received high scores. You can refer to the recent English rankings.

Fifth Sin: Only traffic, no quality.

Actually, this cannot be said to be his problem; it is a problem that exists throughout InfoFi. How to put it? For example, Info is ahead, and traffic is still very important, but now your traffic has joined the project, so it needs to be managed. Just like those who start making tutorials without even knowing what YT is, such people need to be eliminated.

Suggestion: Still the same; because the project has been integrated, it helps improve exposure for the project while users come to the platform. We should cherish our reputation a bit more. Since quality is needed, can we find a 'question setter' to write an answer and then use this answer for comparison, followed by the emergence of more 'standard answers' as user numbers increase?