Dernières actualités sur le ##creatorpad, les avis et flux aujourd’hui

·

--

Me wondering who's going to get rewards on CreatorPad for $PIXEL 🤨:
#PolymarketDeniesDataBreach
#ArthurHayes’LatestSpeech
#ShootingIncidentAtWhiteHouseCorrespondentsDinner
#creatorpad
#pixel

PIXEL-5,26%

CANProtocol:

Pixels is steadily building a more sustainable and engaging ecosystem by focusing on real user participation instead of short-term reward cycles. This approach encourages consistent activity, where effort is aligned with value creation, helping users stay involved over time. As development continues, it strengthens community interaction, improves stability, and supports long-term growth through a more balanced and meaningful experience.

Maharia Queen

·

--

#PIXEL📈 $PIXEL

PIXEL Creatorpad Campaign is wrapping up and these 3 days were a complete game changer for me 🔥

On April 28th alone I hit 1128+ Views, 20+ Replies, 8 Quotes - top creators like Ali Crypto Doctor and Crypto Pari showed massive support and even pinned my posts 💎

Honestly? Started with zero investment, just research and consistency. Binance Square proved that quality content actually gets rewarded.

Leaderboard finalizes tomorrow at 2 PM. Whatever the result, one thing is clear - in Web3, community is everything.

With your support, I'll do even better in the next campaign. Whether it's $PIXEL or any other project, the learning and sharing never stops 🚀 I love you binance and their staff...

#BinanceSquare #CreatorPad #Crypto #viralpost2026 #GhostOfPumpDaddy #Web3 #Altseason

PIXEL-5,26%

BullionOX:

I like how Pixels feels steady instead of chasing attention every week.

AnasOnChain

·

--

Binance Square CreatorPad campaign is running… and yes, I’m part of it too.

Honestly, I joined a bit late compared to others. Many creators have been here for a long time, that’s why their names keep showing on the leaderboard. I’m still in the learning phase.

My journey started with Injective. After that I joined FF, Kite, Bank, APRO, Walrus, Dusk, VANRY, Plasma, ROBO, MIRA, Fogo… and now recently Knight, Sign, and Pixels.

I stayed consistent and joined almost every campaign.

But the result?

Not even once did my name appear on the leaderboard.

Look at the last 3 campaigns:
$NIGHT campaign — I closed at 532
$SIGN campaign — I reached 356
$PIXEL campaign — currently around 740… maybe after final points I’ll close somewhere near 680–700

Honestly, it feels frustrating sometimes.

I put in effort, create content, and try to improve every time… but results still don’t match expectations.

But one thing is clear:
Every campaign taught me something.

Now I understand it’s not just about posting… timing, angle, originality, and audience understanding matter a lot.

Didn’t happen this time? Fine.

Next campaign, I’ll come back with a better strategy.

Now I understand the game… and this time it won’t just be consistency, it will be smart work too.
#creatorpad #Binance

PIXEL-5,26%

SIGN-0,87%

NIGHT-5,59%

Ahmed6543:

Yes

tooba raj

·

--

Haussier

@Pixels :Why $PIXEL 's Whitepaper Begins With a Problem, Not a Promise And Why That Makes All the Difference
Most crypto whitepapers open the same way. A big claim. A bold vision. A promise that this project will change everything. The language is confident, the numbers are large, and the problem being solved is described in the vaguest possible terms. Then the project launches, the economy breaks, and the team disappears. The $PIXEL whitepaper opens differently. It starts by acknowledging that play-to-earn, when not executed correctly, creates misaligned incentives extractive economies where players are rewarded for grinding rather than genuine contribution, and where token inflation destroys the value of what players earn. That is an honest diagnosis of a real failure, written before a single promise is made.
This matters more than it sounds. A team that opens with a problem is a team that has studied what went wrong before them. Pixels addresses these challenges directly through targeted rewards, clever economic structures, and better incentive alignment combining data science with innovative token mechanics to reward genuine player contributions rather than just presence.
Every collapsed play-to-earn project promised a revolution. None of them started by asking why the last revolution failed. Pixels did. That single difference in thinking is why the design that follows is more credible than anything that came before it.
#pixel
#PixelsGame
#CreatorPad
$PIXEL
$RONIN

RONIN-5,85%

PIXEL-5,26%

Malik Shabi ul Hassan :

Starting with the problem rather than an empty promise is the hallmark of a mature project; by acknowledging the fragility of game economies upfront Pixels has built a foundation based on structural reality instead of just whitepaper idealism

tooba raj

·

--

Article

The Invisible Hand Within $PIXEL: The Role of Data Science in Guiding the Token Economy from the Bac@pixels :There is an unseen process operating within the $PIXEL token economy which most people playing the game don’t even realize.The e $PIXEL It is not the farming, the crafting, or the quests. It is not the staking pools or the governance votes. It is something quieter and more consequential than any of those things. Every time a player completes a quest, fills a merchant order, spends tokens on an upgrade, logs in for the fifth day in a row, or refers a friend who actually stays and plays, that action is recorded and analyzed. The system is watching what real players do, building profiles of their behavior, and using that information to decide where the next round of $PIXEL rewards should flow. This is not random. It is not equal. It is deliberate, data-driven targeting and it is the mechanism that separates the $PIXEL economy from every failed play-to-earn experiment that came before it. The whitepaper describes it as a comprehensive data infrastructure similar to a next-generation ad network, identifying which player actions genuinely drive long-term value and directing rewards specifically toward those actions. Most players never notice it working. That invisibility is the point. The best way to understand how this system works is to understand why the older model failed so completely. Early play-to-earn games distributed rewards through simple rules complete this action, receive this token. The rules were the same for every player. A person farming crops for genuine enjoyment received the same reward as a bot running an automated script twenty-four hours a day. That equality was actually a catastrophic flaw. Bots could act faster and more consistently than humans, which meant they captured a disproportionate share of every reward pool. Real players found their earnings shrinking as bots flooded the economy. Token supply inflated. Prices fell. Players left. The economy collapsed. The Pixels team spent two years inside a live game with millions of players collecting the data they needed to design something fundamentally different. Barwikowski described it directly: they have been building data science models for years, learning how different types of players use whether they reinvest in the game, trade immediately, or are running sybil farming operations. That classification is the first layer of the invisible system. The second layer is segmentation. Once the system has identified what kind of player someone is, it places them into a segment a group of people with similar behavior patterns, engagement histories, and spending habits. A player who has been active for six months, spends tokens consistently inside the game, and has referred two friends who also stayed and played is in a very different segment than someone who created an account three days ago and has not spent anything. The system treats these two players differently when allocating rewards. The long-term engaged player is likely to reinvest their rewards back into the game, which makes the RORS positive and keeps the economy healthy. The new or unengaged player might extract and sell immediately, which puts downward pressure on the token price. Paying both players the same amount makes no economic sense. The segmentation layer means rewards flow toward the people whose behavior actually strengthens the ecosystem quietly, automatically, without those players needing to know it is happening. The third layer is prediction. This is where the data science becomes most powerful and most consequential for the token economy. The system does not just react to what players have done it predicts what they are likely to do next. A veteran player who has not made a purchase in thirty days is flagged as at-risk of churning. A new player who completed three quests in their first session is flagged as high-potential. The system can deploy a targeted reward offer to the at-risk veteran at exactly the moment most likely to bring them back. It can give the high-potential new player a bonus that pushes them deeper into the game before they lose momentum. Stacked, the rewards platform built from four years of Pixels data, demonstrated exactly how powerful this prediction layer can be in practice. A campaign targeting veteran players who had not spent in over thirty days produced a 178 percent lift in conversion to spend and a 129 percent increase in active days for those players all with a RORS of 131 percent. Every token spent on that campaign generated more than one dollar back. That is the invisible hand working at its most precise. The final and most important thing to understand about this system is what it means for as a token over time. In old play-to-earn models, the token supply grew constantly while the economic activity it was supposed to represent stayed flat or shrank. This was the fundamental formula for collapse. The $PIXEL model is structurally different because the data science layer continuously adjusts where tokens flow based on which behaviors are currently generating positive RORS. If one part of the ecosystem is generating less return than expected, the targeting system shifts rewards away from it toward higher-performing areas. If a new game joining the platform shows strong spending behavior from its player base, it attracts more staking and more rewards automatically. The system is self-correcting not through manual intervention from the team, but through the continuous feedback loop of behavioral data flowing back into targeting decisions. Barwikowski put it plainly: what they have built is almost like an ad network where they already have data on millions of users how they spend, how they interact, whether they are bots and they use that data to give fine-grained control over who gets targeted for rewards and why. Most players will never know this system exists. But every player who earns inside the ecosystem is either being rewarded by it or filtered out by it and that invisible distinction is what keeps the whole economy alive. #pixel #PixelsGame #RoninNetwork #creatorpad #RONIN {future}(PIXELUSDT) {future}(RONINUSDT) @pixels

The Invisible Hand Within $PIXEL: The Role of Data Science in Guiding the Token Economy from the Bac

@Pixels :There is an unseen process operating within the $PIXEL token economy which most people playing the game don’t even realize.The e $PIXEL It is not the farming, the crafting, or the quests. It is not the staking pools or the governance votes. It is something quieter and more consequential than any of those things. Every time a player completes a quest, fills a merchant order, spends tokens on an upgrade, logs in for the fifth day in a row, or refers a friend who actually stays and plays, that action is recorded and analyzed. The system is watching what real players do, building profiles of their behavior, and using that information to decide where the next round of $PIXEL rewards should flow. This is not random. It is not equal. It is deliberate, data-driven targeting and it is the mechanism that separates the $PIXEL economy from every failed play-to-earn experiment that came before it. The whitepaper describes it as a comprehensive data infrastructure similar to a next-generation ad network, identifying which player actions genuinely drive long-term value and directing rewards specifically toward those actions. Most players never notice it working. That invisibility is the point.

The best way to understand how this system works is to understand why the older model failed so completely. Early play-to-earn games distributed rewards through simple rules complete this action, receive this token. The rules were the same for every player. A person farming crops for genuine enjoyment received the same reward as a bot running an automated script twenty-four hours a day. That equality was actually a catastrophic flaw. Bots could act faster and more consistently than humans, which meant they captured a disproportionate share of every reward pool. Real players found their earnings shrinking as bots flooded the economy. Token supply inflated. Prices fell. Players left. The economy collapsed. The Pixels team spent two years inside a live game with millions of players collecting the data they needed to design something fundamentally different. Barwikowski described it directly: they have been building data science models for years, learning how different types of players use whether they reinvest in the game, trade immediately, or are running sybil farming operations. That classification is the first layer of the invisible system.

The second layer is segmentation. Once the system has identified what kind of player someone is, it places them into a segment a group of people with similar behavior patterns, engagement histories, and spending habits. A player who has been active for six months, spends tokens consistently inside the game, and has referred two friends who also stayed and played is in a very different segment than someone who created an account three days ago and has not spent anything. The system treats these two players differently when allocating rewards. The long-term engaged player is likely to reinvest their rewards back into the game, which makes the RORS positive and keeps the economy healthy. The new or unengaged player might extract and sell immediately, which puts downward pressure on the token price. Paying both players the same amount makes no economic sense. The segmentation layer means rewards flow toward the people whose behavior actually strengthens the ecosystem quietly, automatically, without those players needing to know it is happening.

The third layer is prediction. This is where the data science becomes most powerful and most consequential for the token economy. The system does not just react to what players have done it predicts what they are likely to do next. A veteran player who has not made a purchase in thirty days is flagged as at-risk of churning. A new player who completed three quests in their first session is flagged as high-potential. The system can deploy a targeted reward offer to the at-risk veteran at exactly the moment most likely to bring them back. It can give the high-potential new player a bonus that pushes them deeper into the game before they lose momentum. Stacked, the rewards platform built from four years of Pixels data, demonstrated exactly how powerful this prediction layer can be in practice. A campaign targeting veteran players who had not spent in over thirty days produced a 178 percent lift in conversion to spend and a 129 percent increase in active days for those players all with a RORS of 131 percent. Every token spent on that campaign generated more than one dollar back. That is the invisible hand working at its most precise.

The final and most important thing to understand about this system is what it means for as a token over time. In old play-to-earn models, the token supply grew constantly while the economic activity it was supposed to represent stayed flat or shrank. This was the fundamental formula for collapse. The $PIXEL model is structurally different because the data science layer continuously adjusts where tokens flow based on which behaviors are currently generating positive RORS. If one part of the ecosystem is generating less return than expected, the targeting system shifts rewards away from it toward higher-performing areas. If a new game joining the platform shows strong spending behavior from its player base, it attracts more staking and more rewards automatically. The system is self-correcting not through manual intervention from the team, but through the continuous feedback loop of behavioral data flowing back into targeting decisions. Barwikowski put it plainly: what they have built is almost like an ad network where they already have data on millions of users how they spend, how they interact, whether they are bots and they use that data to give fine-grained control over who gets targeted for rewards and why. Most players will never know this system exists. But every player who earns inside the ecosystem is either being rewarded by it or filtered out by it and that invisible distinction is what keeps the whole economy alive.

#pixel
#PixelsGame
#RoninNetwork
#creatorpad
#RONIN

@pixels

RONIN-5,85%

PIXEL-5,26%

Alpha Byte:

From a trading standpoint, reducing inflated rewards is one of the strongest indicators of long-term sustainability for any token-based ecosystem

快乐的小海豹

·

--

Réponse à

是谁两手空空 et 1 autres utilisateurs

你说怎么玩#creatorpad 还是怎么玩pixel？这一期creatorpad今天最后一天。如果你说的是pixel，直接访问官网浏览器里连上钱包就能开玩

tooba raj

·

--

Haussier

PIXEL is not just another farming game. Yes, you plant crops, gather resources, and build your farm but there is something more going on beneath the surface.
Most blockchain games chase quick money. They offer big rewards early, then collapse because there is nothing real holding them together. PIXEL is taking a different road. The game moves slowly on purpose. You build skills, tend your land, and interact with other players at your own pace. There is no rush. That patience is actually the point.
What makes PIXEL interesting is that the gameplay itself feels worth something. You are not just grinding for tokens you are building a place that feels like yours. Your farm, your skills, your routine. The economy exists, but it does not swallow everything else.
The $PIXEL token supports upgrades and crafting, but it is not the only reason to play. Free players can progress normally without needing to buy or trade tokens at all.That kind of design choice says a lot about where this game wants to go.
PIXEL still has rough edges. It is not finished. But that is exactly why it is worth watching right now because you can see something real being built, one small step at a time.

#pixel
#PixelsGame
#creatorpad
$PIXEL
$RONIN

RONIN-5,85%

PIXEL-5,26%

Malik Shabi ul Hassan :

By prioritizing systemic friction over instant gratification, Pixels has transformed the simple act of farming into a high-stakes lesson in economic endurance, proving that a digital nation is built on the patience of its citizens rather than the greed of its tourists.

Fatima_Tariq

·

--

Article

I Held $PIXEL Through the Ronin Era and the L2 Migration Is Making Me Rethink My Entire PositionI Held @pixels Through the Ronin Era and the L2 Migration Is Making Me Rethink My Entire Position.I've been holding #pixel since early 2024. Watched it trade in a relatively tight behavioral range inside Ronin farm, rotate, exit, repeat. I tracked my own exit and re-entry points across six separate cycles and noticed something consistent: the holding windows were short but the rotation patterns were predictable. Ronin's closed rails created a kind of noise floor. Capital moved but it moved in familiar loops.That predictability is about to change and I don't think most people holding @pixels have fully thought through what that means.Here's my actual concern. I currently have roughly 12,000 #PIXEL! split across active staking and liquid reserves. About 60% staked, 40% liquid for rotation. That split made sense inside Ronin's contained environment where I could read flow behavior with reasonable confidence. Ethereum L2 connectivity changes the composition of who enters this market and that changes how I need to manage that split entirely.Let me explain what I mean by liquidity quality vs liquidity quantity because I think this distinction is getting lost in the excitement around more access.When Ronin was the primary rail, the participants were mostly ecosystem natives @pixels farmers, land owners, RORS optimizers. Capital that entered generally understood what it was entering. Holding windows were longer on average because participants had in-game reasons to stay. My own average hold across those six cycles was around 18 days before rotating. Not long by traditional standards but consistent enough to plan around. Ethereum L2 opens the door to a completely different participant profile.Arbitrage traders, external liquidity providers, momentum chasers who have never opened @pixels once. These participants aren't wrong to enter deeper markets and better price discovery benefit everyone in theory. But their average holding window isn't 18 days. It's closer to 18 hours. And when that capital type dominates volume it creates a chart that looks bullish while actually reflecting rapid rotation rather than genuine demand growth.I've already started watching this in the early L2 bridge data. Volume spikes that look exciting on the surface but flatten out within 48 hours as external capital rotates out. That's the pattern I'm most worried about becoming normalized around PIXEL if the ecosystem doesn't build fast enough to create sticky demand from the new participants coming in.The good news is #Pixels has real in-game sinks that can counter this. Land utility, Tier 5 crafting demand, RORS pressure, Hearth Fragment progression, and the Stacked reward layer all create reasons to hold beyond speculation. A player running optimized T5 industries has a completely different incentive structure than an external arbitrage trader. If those sinks keep deepening more crafting loops, stronger land utility, meaningful progression tied to holding then L2 access becomes a genuine tailwind. New capital enters, gets exposed to ecosystem depth, and a percentage of it converts into native holders.If those sinks stall or don't expand fast enough, external flows will dominate short-term price behavior without strengthening anything underneath.In @pixels I've adjusted my own position in anticipation moved from 60/40 staked-to-liquid to 70/30 specifically because I want more of my stack inside ecosystem mechanics and less exposed to the external flow volatility I expect to increase over the next two quarters.The market will celebrate the L2 migration as pure upside. More access, more volume, more exposure. And in the short term it probably will be. First capital arrives fast and prices respond. Then that capital tests every weak incentive in the system. The projects that survive that test are the ones with enough in-game demand to absorb the rotation and convert some of it into real ecosystem growth. #Pixels has the infrastructure to pass that test. The question is whether enough of it activates fast enough to set the tone before external flow behavior becomes the dominant narrative.That's what I'm watching. Not the volume numbers when L2 fully opens. The holding window data two months after. $DAM {future}(DAMUSDT) $PRL {future}(PRLUSDT) $PIXEL {future}(PIXELUSDT) #Creatorpad #LearnWithFatima

I Held $PIXEL Through the Ronin Era and the L2 Migration Is Making Me Rethink My Entire Position

I Held @Pixels Through the Ronin Era and the L2 Migration Is Making Me Rethink My Entire Position.I've been holding #pixel since early 2024. Watched it trade in a relatively tight behavioral range inside Ronin farm, rotate, exit, repeat. I tracked my own exit and re-entry points across six separate cycles and noticed something consistent: the holding windows were short but the rotation patterns were predictable. Ronin's closed rails created a kind of noise floor. Capital moved but it moved in familiar loops.That predictability is about to change and I don't think most people holding @Pixels have fully thought through what that means.Here's my actual concern. I currently have roughly 12,000 #PIXEL! split across active staking and liquid reserves. About 60% staked, 40% liquid for rotation. That split made sense inside Ronin's contained environment where I could read flow behavior with reasonable confidence. Ethereum L2 connectivity changes the composition of who enters this market and that changes how I need to manage that split entirely.Let me explain what I mean by liquidity quality vs liquidity quantity because I think this distinction is getting lost in the excitement around more access.When Ronin was the primary rail, the participants were mostly ecosystem natives @Pixels farmers, land owners, RORS optimizers. Capital that entered generally understood what it was entering. Holding windows were longer on average because participants had in-game reasons to stay. My own average hold across those six cycles was around 18 days before rotating. Not long by traditional standards but consistent enough to plan around.
Ethereum L2 opens the door to a completely different participant profile.Arbitrage traders, external liquidity providers, momentum chasers who have never opened @Pixels once. These participants aren't wrong to enter deeper markets and better price discovery benefit everyone in theory. But their average holding window isn't 18 days. It's closer to 18 hours. And when that capital type dominates volume it creates a chart that looks bullish while actually reflecting rapid rotation rather than genuine demand growth.I've already started watching this in the early L2 bridge data. Volume spikes that look exciting on the surface but flatten out within 48 hours as external capital rotates out. That's the pattern I'm most worried about becoming normalized around PIXEL if the ecosystem doesn't build fast enough to create sticky demand from the new participants coming in.The good news is #Pixels has real in-game sinks that can counter this. Land utility, Tier 5 crafting demand, RORS pressure, Hearth Fragment progression, and the Stacked reward layer all create reasons to hold beyond speculation. A player running optimized T5 industries has a completely different incentive structure than an external arbitrage trader. If those sinks keep deepening more crafting loops, stronger land utility, meaningful progression tied to holding then L2 access becomes a genuine tailwind.
New capital enters, gets exposed to ecosystem depth, and a percentage of it converts into native holders.If those sinks stall or don't expand fast enough, external flows will dominate short-term price behavior without strengthening anything underneath.In @Pixels I've adjusted my own position in anticipation moved from 60/40 staked-to-liquid to 70/30 specifically because I want more of my stack inside ecosystem mechanics and less exposed to the external flow volatility I expect to increase over the next two quarters.The market will celebrate the L2 migration as pure upside. More access, more volume, more exposure. And in the short term it probably will be. First capital arrives fast and prices respond. Then that capital tests every weak incentive in the system. The projects that survive that test are the ones with enough in-game demand to absorb the rotation and convert some of it into real ecosystem growth. #Pixels has the infrastructure to pass that test. The question is whether enough of it activates fast enough to set the tone before external flow behavior becomes the dominant narrative.That's what I'm watching. Not the volume numbers when L2 fully opens. The holding window data two months after.
$DAM
$PRL
$PIXEL
#Creatorpad #LearnWithFatima

PIXEL-5,26%

DAMAlpha-48.21%

PRL-13,22%

BlockRadarX:

📊 A+ crypto signals & news daily — follow 👇

RoYoK

·

--

Haussier

😅 Desconozco si el equipo de Square leyó mi artículo donde expongo a el grupo de cuentas que estaban dañando , bueno siguen haciendo el engamement organizado o artificial!

Recientemente la cuenta oficial de binance Square se pronunció @Binance Square Official y escribió cambios en el algoritmo tal cual las debilidades encontradas expuestas desde hace semanas atrás incluso hace un mes creo que durante la campaña de Sign protocol empecé hacerlo en X .

Exponer esto en X realmente ayudo mucho, esto puede ser una victoria para lograr construir un Binance Square Mejor para todos !

Desde mi trinchera hago un aporte en ayudar a que este lugar que tiene la comunidad mas grande de Crypto Bros , sea confiable y creíble en cuanto la confianza de los lectores en leer opiniones de KOLs !!

La batalla termina cuando se vean los cambios en la asignación de puntos en Creator Pad, el boost de visualizaciones y aceptación de interacción artificial u organizada!

Lean aqui la respuesta de Binance en su reciente Post:
Binance Square Talks about Engagement Farming
Leo sus opiniones!

-
#creatorpad #BinanceSquareTalks

RoYoK

·

--

Engagement Organizado la Clave de muchos en Creator Pad Global

Al algoritmo de creator pad le falta sentido común humano, porque lo digo? Debido al autofarming o falso engagament que se ha estado viendo en las últimas 3 campañas de creator pad que he participado. Me había ausentado porque no me parecía justo el antiguo algoritmo y vi que muchos compañeros regresaron en la campaña de $ROBO y les fue bien.
No obstante, he sido muy curioso y voy mas alla de muchas cosas, la gota de reboso el vaso fue en la campaña de Sign Protocol en donde de manera descarada, falta de respeto sin escrúpulos un grupo de usuarios autofarmea likes y comentarios, y es ahi donde el algoritmo toma valida esa interacción.
Exprese mi opinion en post de X exponiendo usuarios que se copiaban entre si sus post que obtenían muchos puntos, intente esa estrategia y no obtuve los mismos resultados que ellos, entonces que pasa ? suena raro no ?

Ese post genero mucha polémica que incluso los 2 usuarios fueron a responder dando excusas, muchos comentarios a favor de mi reclamo realmente. Y que sucedió nada en la nueva campaña de @Pixels , sigue igual y te voy a mostrar con bases la diferencia de un engagement natural boosted por el mismo algoritmo vs el organizado por comunidades que esos usuarios tienen en twitter (tengo un insider que me dio ese dato)
Likes & Comentarios Artificiales
No esta mal ayudar o interactuar con post de personas participantes de la campaña es algo normal, pero estar pegado muchas horas en square dando likes y comentarios para que sean devuelto ya es auto farming.

Que es lo normal que suceda al postear tu articulo binance square impulsa tu contenido en base a si le gusta y redacción calidad, etc. Y este se muestra en tu Feed de primero y es ahi donde se obtiene un engagement orgánico , porque común se ven este tipo de interacción en post de señales de trading en donde las personas se sienten atraídas a comentar y dar like, pero díganme ustedes quien va a tener mas de 100 comentarios en un post de Pixel si ya sabemos que es un juego maduro con buena reputación , ahi es donde viene el falso engagement.
Estuve comparando los usuarios de ambos leaderboard de Global vs Chino, y es abismal la diferencia en el leaderboard chino si se ve mucho mas natural la asignación de puntos de post que ni llegan a 1000 vistas y con menos de 20 likes están posicionados en top 100

En cambio el Global es un desastre, y es tan simple cualquier persona puede darse cuenta de eso y no hacen nada ?
La pregunta el juego Pixel esta pagando por hacer una campaña global para que 200 personas entre si hagan likes y comentarios? ese es el verdadero alcance para que el juego o Dapp se expanda ? Hay que pensar como el cliente también que en este caso son los proyectos que son lanzados en Creator Pad.
El mismo Patron de la Comunidad Organizada
Ahora bien, veamos el patron o factor común de este grupo de personas que organizadamente gastan mas de 12 horas comentando y dando likes a otros usuarios, y bueno por la consistencia podría ser que los usuarios que envían sus post en grupos de plataformas externas (mas adelante van a ver algo respecto a eso)

En esa imagen recopile algunos perfiles que tienen ese patron , podría durar todo el día haciéndolo y el resultado es el mismo, que ven ahi mas de 100 likes casi todas y mas de 200 comentarios, porque es un trabajo de comentar publicaciones de otro a parte las mismas de tu post o articulo para engañar al algoritmo y lo hacen bien porque están en el top del global, entren ustedes mismos y vean esos perfiles sus post comunes de otro tema no llegan a 20 likes ni a 1000 vistas.
Y el algoritmo es engañado porque al ver al inicio de publicar esa falsa interacción el mismo le da Boost de visualizaciones y por eso ven vistas elevadas (ojo las vistas no se pueden autofarmear las otorga Binance)

En esa recopilación pueden ver claramente el auto farmeo de comentarios y likes, mientras recopilaba la información de usuarios del top 100, si pude ver algunos que si se ganaron de manera justa por decirlo así mas de 180 puntos en 2 días con post o articulo con pocos likes y comentarios, en donde se tomo en cuenta lo que esas personas escribieron. Claro la mayoría de usuarios del top están haciendo autofarmeo, gastan horas simplemente dando like y comentando, y vuelve mi pregunta nadie se da cuenta de eso ? Osea solo yo ? Porque nadie hace nada al respecto? Se hacen las denuncias internas en square y la respuesta "no encontramos nada que viole las normas"
Puntos asignados de manera Legal
Aqui se abre un debate, porque muchos en campañas pasadas se quejaban de usuarios sin likes, pocos seguidores se les otorgaban buen cantidad de puntos, es relativo pero aqui ya la responsabilidad es del equipo de square y el algoritmo, talvez el contenido hecho por IA es de valor y de agrado , por ejemplo estos usuarios para mi los puntos se los dieron por la calidad de sus post, este usuario al cierre del 16 de Abril el N°20 del Leaderboard con 180 puntos en tan solo 2 días, quiere decir que le habrán dado el 16 de abril más de 80 o 90 puntos global.

Ahora vemos otro escenario, el usuario N°21 pocos likes y vistas y esta con buen puntaje y el resto de sus publicaciones son similares, ahora la pregunta veo algo peculiar el usuario es chino su descripción es asiatica, no se si sea tomado en cuenta por eso , ya que ese es otro tema la preferencia con usuarios chinos
Que hacen los usuarios Inteligentes ?
Los que son pilas e inteligentes para ocultar el autofarmeo que hacen, ocultan de su perfil la sección de respuestas que es la que los deja al público descubierta su actividad y lo que hacen, ejemplo este usuario en la campaña de Sign protocol gano entre el top 3 mundial de autofarmeo haha

Grupos Externos de Auto Farm
Esto siempre lo sospeche, ya que siempre son las mismas personas que se comentan realmente, algunos usaban los grupo internos de Binance (muy descabellado) , se dieron cuenta y se mudaron a plataformas externas donde envían sus links y los mas de 150 usuarios de manera religiosa van y comentan y dan Likes.. Engañando vilmente al algoritmo inocente por decirlo así

Tengo varios amigos e insiders de estas comunidades ayudándome a encontrar el origen de este desastre, y este es el resultado de la investigación encontrar el grupo en redes externas en donde lo hacen, puede que este sea uno de ellos deben existir muchos mas.
La idea es que el algoritmo pueda detectar automáticamente cuando esta anomalia suceda y descalifique esas cuentas, que es muy visible a la vista de todos.
El otro lado de la moneda, Leaderboard Chino🚀
Vamos al otro lado del planeta! Chinaaaaa ... como se maneja ahi la cosa aparentemente más justa y clara ya que ellos tienen un evento solo para ellos, por el tema que les comenté hace un par de párrafos, en fin, aquí viendo cada perfil que está en el leaderboard es interacción orgánica, pocos likes, pocos comentarios y visualizaciones y tienen puntos decentes por decirlo así alrededor de 50 por cada post, lo que es razonable ya que el máximo es 100 puntos por cada uno, hasta ahora no me he dado cuenta alguien que lo lograra.

Tarde algo de tiempo viendo cada perfil chino y realmente ellos no tienen mucha interacción entre si, ni likes en la mayoría de las veces y vistas super pobres, entre comillas justa la asignación de puntos por la calidad de contenido y no por el auto farmeo que se ve en la sección Global.

Por ejemplo miren esos post, Diosss!! hay uno que no tiene ni likes y comentarios y solo 65 vistas y esta en top 5 con 180 puntos, debe ser muy buen articulo realmente para obtener eso y ahi es un poco valida la ejecución del algoritmo, y así como ese hay muchos pero muchos, que quiero decir que en china la cosa esta más natural cada quien postea su cosa de pixels y se olvida se pone a hacer trading y por su ingenio o creatividad obtienen puntos que es más a favor del reglamento de Creator Pad.
El Reto que les pongo a la comunidad organizada
Si realmente ustedes escriben duran horas en cada artículo, post, investigan whitepaper, noticias sobre pixels y van mas alla, propongo que esas personas dejen de gastar tiempo buscando likes de otros para engañar al algoritmo, porque si ustedes confían en lo que escriben no debería tener problemas, obtendrían los mismos puntos sin la interacción artificial que hacen.

El fin de todo esto
Simple que Creator Pad sea una sección atractiva, justa y confiable para que muchos creadores elite vuelvan a escribir sobre los proyectos que ustedes indican cada 15 días, y es cierto muchos han abandonado escribir sobre este tipo de campañas por la injusticia, más que todo usuarios de la epoca Genesis de Binance Square fundadores que son reconocidos en plataformas externas.
Ahora los que lideran Creator Pad son los cazadores de sobres rojos que se organizaron al estilo redes sociales tradicionales para tener interacción falsa.
Un mensaje para las Dapp que contratan Creator Pad
Ustedes al hacer alianza para que sus proyectos sean visibles y ganen más popularidad en el exchange más grande del planeta, ustedes quieren eso cierto? Que más personas interactúen con sus protocolos, juegos, tokens, etc
O pagan para crear campañas para que un grupo de nose 200 o 300 personas entre si hagan interacción falsa organizada ? Eso no es marketing dice la teoría.
Asi que dejo esa reflexión
Es hora de culminar
Exprese y soy la voz de muchos KOLs que por miedo no se atreven a escribir sobre lo que esta pasando en Creator Pad, todo lo que frustra investigar, escribir, crear imágenes únicas, leer para escribir post o artículos y no obtener nada a cambio ? Y cuando investigas a fondo ves personas sin mucho conocimiento o poco reconocidas en el mundo blockchain llevándose toda la gloria creando post lleno de IA e interacción falsa.
Pues, quiero que binance square sea un sitio justo y limpio, son mas de 6 años dentro de binance y la he visto crecer y lo que esta pasando no me gusta!
Saludos su amigo RoYoK
P.D: Espero a los haters que respondan hahaha
#creatorpad
#BinanceSquareTalks
#AlgorithmManipulation
$BNB
{future}(BNBUSDT)

Proper_Trader:

claim $10 here in red packet 🥰🧧 https://app.binance.com/uni-qr/Wfirxrtd?utm_medium=web_share_copy

your_sihab

·

--

#pixel $PIXEL
🚀 Don’t miss your chance to grab a share of 15,000,000 PIXEL rewards on CreatorPad!
Join now and participate before the reward pool runs out. The earlier you start, the better your chances to earn more.
🔥 Limited rewards. Limited time.
👉 Take action today and explore the opportunity!
#CreatorPad #PixelRewards #EarnOnline #Opportunity @Pixels

PIXEL-5,26%

快乐的小海豹

·

--

这几天本海豹的币安人生状态的就是个茶几，摆的都是悲剧。😭😭悲剧的原因还都是手贱。

1️⃣ 前两天刚发帖说不要靠近 ST 的 #booster 任务，会变得不幸。

好消息是帖子流量15k，坏消息是今天惊觉还是被扣了5分🤬🤬🤬，我明明没参加。看了一下，原来我是手贱点了报名按钮，然后一定是在梦游状态下点了确定，然后5分没了🤬🤬🤬

这五分要等猴年马月才能退回来，气死了，如果这两天出空投了，我铁定吃不到了，烦躁。

新出的这两个$ZKP 和 BTW的 booster任务，一样的路数，都是要你买币质押。ZKP 还稍微好点，至少能套个保。
booster 正式引来扣五分质押时代，以后绝对不会手贱乱点按钮，无趣。

2️⃣ 昨晚精心了半夜的$PIXEL #creatorpad 长文，今天喜提下架。见图三。

这一篇👉https://app.binance.com/uni-qr/cart/317560800852785

我自查实在找不到原因。一开始以为是参考资料出现了隔壁交易所名称字样，删掉依然光速二次下架。

后来回忆了一下，似乎是添加了带外链的参考资料列表后，才下架的。

不知道因为涉及外部链接导致的。我本意是提高专业度和说服力🤣🤣以前的深度长文也添加过带链接的参考文献，但没事。

本来联系了客服说没问题，系统误判，给我上架了，结果我手贱改了个错别字有下架了。

希望结局美丽一点，不要再次白干了。

3️⃣ 今天参加 $JCT 和 TRIA #ALPHA 竞赛的老铁们，聊天室不见不散。

快乐的小海豹

·

--

1️⃣ 🔥🤬 #alpha 出了新的 #booster 任务了，奖励80枚$ST ，当前价值才5～6u🫠。

而且，而且，还要扣5 alpha 积分，成本大概0.55～1u，此外需要买150枚 ST 质押7天，大概10u得花。今天周一，4月份还有3天，4月下半月空投数太少，盲盒凑数，按照历史数据，大概率这三天会出一个空投的，参加了这个 booster 还会导致分不够吃不到这空投。

太太太太离谱了，玩个寂寞，心疼我看规则的时间。

实在太寂寞空虚想掺合，那就等四月结束时如果分数有结余，再去参加消分。活动截止五一假期结束。

见图一图二。

2️⃣ 昨天忘了刷alpha（其实又是拖延），今日凌晨7:57才记起来，匆忙刷了34笔 $GENIUS ，结果最后两笔是8:00完成的，导致昨天交易分不够16，见图三。

我真是🤡。

气死了，本来不打算参加 genius竞赛二期了，但现在来这么一出好不甘心。🤨

{future}(GENIUSUSDT)

PIXEL-5,26%

ZKP-11,84%

TRIA+7,01%

飞不了的企鹅:

我也是点到了扣5分

Honest_7

·

--

Article

Stacked positioned itself against ad platforms and its own documentation describes an ad platform@pixels There is a diagram on Stacked's consumer-facing website that is worth looking at before reading anything else the platform has published about itself. On one side of the diagram sits the conventional model: Games pay Big Tech Ads, Big Tech Ads finds Users, and the User receives nothing. On the other side sits Stacked's proposed alternative, in which the value flows directly to the player rather than being captured by an intermediary. The framing is clean and the critique it makes of the existing model is not wrong. Ad platforms do extract value that never reaches the people whose attention made it possible. That is a fair observation about how the digital advertising economy works. The difficulty arrives when you open Stacked's own product documentation and read how the platform describes itself to the studios considering integration. The phrase that appears there is "all-in-one data platform." The documentation describes advanced user profiling, behavioural segmentation, audience targeting, and campaign optimisation. It describes a system that ingests player signals, builds models of player behaviour, and uses those models to determine which players receive which rewards at which moments. This is not a description of a neutral payment rail. It is a description of a data platform that monitors, classifies, and acts on user behaviour at scale. The question worth asking is what the meaningful difference is between that and the thing the consumer website diagram is positioned against. I want to think through this carefully rather than reach for an easy conclusion, because the distinction the platform is drawing is real even if the framing around it is strained. The difference between a system that extracts attention and sells it to advertisers and a system that uses behavioural data to deliver rewards to players is not nothing. The direction of value flow genuinely matters. But the direction of value flow is not the only dimension worth examining when you are thinking about what a behavioural data platform actually does and who it serves. It’s actually simpler to follow than it first sounds. A studio brings in the SDK. From that point, the platform is watching collecting signals about how players move through the game, what they buy, how long they stay, where they drop off. Those signals get sorted into audience groups. Someone flagged as a high-value spender sits in a different bucket than someone the model thinks is about to leave. The platform then uses those buckets to decide who gets a reward, when, and at what level. A player who falls into a high-value segment receives a different intervention than one flagged as at-risk of churning. The platform's AI layer is making decisions, in real time, about which players deserve which treatment based on a model of their behaviour that the player did not consent to, cannot inspect, and may not know exists. Now consider how a conventional ad platform works at each equivalent stage. A publisher integrates a tracking SDK. The platform ingests behavioural signals from users across its publisher network. It builds audience segments based on browsing behaviour, purchase history, and engagement patterns. It uses those segments to determine which ads to serve, at what price, to which users. The advertiser pays for access to the segment. The user receives the ad. The distinction the Stacked diagram is drawing is that in the conventional model the user receives nothing, while in the Stacked model the user receives a reward. That is a genuine distinction. What the diagram does not acknowledge is that both systems are doing the same thing to the user's behavioural data in the process of arriving at that different outcome. The argument Stacked might reasonably make is that being profiled in exchange for a reward is a better deal than being profiled in exchange for an ad, and this argument is not without merit. If the player is going to be profiled regardless of which platform they interact with, then receiving value from the profiling is better than receiving nothing. That is a coherent position. The problem is that it is a different argument from the one the consumer website is making. The website is positioning Stacked as an alternative to the extractive model. The documentation is describing a system that participates in the same data economy while redirecting a portion of the captured value downward rather than upward. These are not equivalent claims and they are not aimed at the same audience, which is itself worth noting. There is a further layer worth being direct about. The value of a behavioural data platform increases with the granularity and volume of the data it holds. A platform that profiles players across a single game is useful. A platform that profiles players across every game studio that has integrated its SDK, building a cross-game behavioural record tied to a wallet identity that persists across the ecosystem, is considerably more powerful. The Pixels reputation system, the cross-game identity layer, and the AI-driven segmentation that Stacked's documentation describes are all working toward that second kind of platform. The players receiving USDC rewards from this system are the data source that makes the platform valuable to the studios paying for it. The reward and the extraction are happening simultaneously rather than sequentially. I am not suggesting that this makes Stacked a bad product or a dishonest one. A platform that returns value to players while building a data asset is doing something genuinely different from one that returns nothing. The players inside the ecosystem are materially better off receiving rewards than they would be receiving ads. But the consumer website framing, which positions the platform as an escape from the attention economy rather than a reformed participation in it, is doing more rhetorical work than the product architecture can support. The meaningful difference between an extractive ad platform and a behavioural data platform that pays players is real but narrower than the diagram implies, and the narrowness of that gap is worth understanding before deciding how much weight to give the positioning. What I keep returning to is a question about who the consumer website is actually written for. Studios reading Stacked's technical documentation understand they are buying a data platform with targeting capabilities. Players reading the consumer positioning are being told they are escaping a system that exploited them. Whether those two descriptions of the same product can both be accurate at the same time, and what it means for the players' understanding of their own role in the economy they have been invited to join, is something the platform's current framing does not address directly.$PIXEL #pixel #stacked #Play2Earn #creatorpad

Stacked positioned itself against ad platforms and its own documentation describes an ad platform

@Pixels
There is a diagram on Stacked's consumer-facing website that is worth looking at before reading anything else the platform has published about itself. On one side of the diagram sits the conventional model: Games pay Big Tech Ads, Big Tech Ads finds Users, and the User receives nothing. On the other side sits Stacked's proposed alternative, in which the value flows directly to the player rather than being captured by an intermediary. The framing is clean and the critique it makes of the existing model is not wrong. Ad platforms do extract value that never reaches the people whose attention made it possible. That is a fair observation about how the digital advertising economy works.

The difficulty arrives when you open Stacked's own product documentation and read how the platform describes itself to the studios considering integration. The phrase that appears there is "all-in-one data platform." The documentation describes advanced user profiling, behavioural segmentation, audience targeting, and campaign optimisation. It describes a system that ingests player signals, builds models of player behaviour, and uses those models to determine which players receive which rewards at which moments. This is not a description of a neutral payment rail. It is a description of a data platform that monitors, classifies, and acts on user behaviour at scale. The question worth asking is what the meaningful difference is between that and the thing the consumer website diagram is positioned against.

I want to think through this carefully rather than reach for an easy conclusion, because the distinction the platform is drawing is real even if the framing around it is strained. The difference between a system that extracts attention and sells it to advertisers and a system that uses behavioural data to deliver rewards to players is not nothing. The direction of value flow genuinely matters. But the direction of value flow is not the only dimension worth examining when you are thinking about what a behavioural data platform actually does and who it serves.

It’s actually simpler to follow than it first sounds. A studio brings in the SDK. From that point, the platform is watching collecting signals about how players move through the game, what they buy, how long they stay, where they drop off. Those signals get sorted into audience groups. Someone flagged as a high-value spender sits in a different bucket than someone the model thinks is about to leave. The platform then uses those buckets to decide who gets a reward, when, and at what level. A player who falls into a high-value segment receives a different intervention than one flagged as at-risk of churning. The platform's AI layer is making decisions, in real time, about which players deserve which treatment based on a model of their behaviour that the player did not consent to, cannot inspect, and may not know exists.

Now consider how a conventional ad platform works at each equivalent stage. A publisher integrates a tracking SDK. The platform ingests behavioural signals from users across its publisher network. It builds audience segments based on browsing behaviour, purchase history, and engagement patterns. It uses those segments to determine which ads to serve, at what price, to which users. The advertiser pays for access to the segment. The user receives the ad. The distinction the Stacked diagram is drawing is that in the conventional model the user receives nothing, while in the Stacked model the user receives a reward. That is a genuine distinction. What the diagram does not acknowledge is that both systems are doing the same thing to the user's behavioural data in the process of arriving at that different outcome.

The argument Stacked might reasonably make is that being profiled in exchange for a reward is a better deal than being profiled in exchange for an ad, and this argument is not without merit. If the player is going to be profiled regardless of which platform they interact with, then receiving value from the profiling is better than receiving nothing. That is a coherent position. The problem is that it is a different argument from the one the consumer website is making. The website is positioning Stacked as an alternative to the extractive model. The documentation is describing a system that participates in the same data economy while redirecting a portion of the captured value downward rather than upward. These are not equivalent claims and they are not aimed at the same audience, which is itself worth noting.

There is a further layer worth being direct about. The value of a behavioural data platform increases with the granularity and volume of the data it holds. A platform that profiles players across a single game is useful. A platform that profiles players across every game studio that has integrated its SDK, building a cross-game behavioural record tied to a wallet identity that persists across the ecosystem, is considerably more powerful. The Pixels reputation system, the cross-game identity layer, and the AI-driven segmentation that Stacked's documentation describes are all working toward that second kind of platform. The players receiving USDC rewards from this system are the data source that makes the platform valuable to the studios paying for it. The reward and the extraction are happening simultaneously rather than sequentially.

I am not suggesting that this makes Stacked a bad product or a dishonest one. A platform that returns value to players while building a data asset is doing something genuinely different from one that returns nothing. The players inside the ecosystem are materially better off receiving rewards than they would be receiving ads. But the consumer website framing, which positions the platform as an escape from the attention economy rather than a reformed participation in it, is doing more rhetorical work than the product architecture can support. The meaningful difference between an extractive ad platform and a behavioural data platform that pays players is real but narrower than the diagram implies, and the narrowness of that gap is worth understanding before deciding how much weight to give the positioning.

What I keep returning to is a question about who the consumer website is actually written for. Studios reading Stacked's technical documentation understand they are buying a data platform with targeting capabilities. Players reading the consumer positioning are being told they are escaping a system that exploited them. Whether those two descriptions of the same product can both be accurate at the same time, and what it means for the players' understanding of their own role in the economy they have been invited to join, is something the platform's current framing does not address directly.$PIXEL
#pixel #stacked #Play2Earn
#creatorpad

PIXEL-5,26%

Alpha Byte:

The reduced freedom might feel restrictive now

快乐的小海豹

·

--

🦭你海豹还是你海豹，没底气但必须有气势.jpg🦭

这一期 $PIXEL 的#creatorpad 写的超绝望，开局无名氏、无名次、无三天交易分，好不容易挤进前500，然后每天在充满希望中稳定下跌、每天更换一种花样探索AI的G点，直到昨天跌到499，见图2。🤨🤨

那一刻我希望我不是499，而是跌到999，这样我就能光明正大地自暴自弃解脱了🤨🤨攒经验超累的好不，再也不想攒了。

结果今天突然爆了72.69分，没有找到G点的兴奋，只有感觉又被拉回前500遛了一圈的羞耻。今天请叫我M豹。

一度还以为是幻觉。

今日早八发的这两篇👇写的很用力，能不能苟住前500全靠它们了。图一这位的评论太有意思了哈哈哈哈。

为啥很用力？因为还剩八小时结束这段 SM 虐恋情深了，今日的两篇还没写、也实在没有可写的花样了：或许没有打动自己的东西，永远成不了自己的，就好比不爱你的 S ，不是好 S。

下个项目我要自己当 S，但不要这两天就来，我已经写虚脱了，让我缓缓。

🦭你海豹还是你海豹，没底气但必须有气势.jpg🦭

快乐的小海豹

·

--

🔥Ronin L2迁移前夜，Pixels玩家该如何提前调整耕作策略？

本海豹今天刷到了@Pixels 相关的一则重要新闻热闹，Ronin官方直接放话：5月12日，区块高度55,577,490之后，主网就要彻底切换到Ethereum OP Stack L2了。10小时downtime（美东时间11点到21点），游戏大概率打不开。我最近在Pixels里刷Union Yieldstone的时候，越想越觉得这次升级不是小打小闹，而是把我们这些天天种地的老玩家直接推到新赛道。

先说利好：gas费会大幅降低，RON通胀从20%以上直接腰斩到1%以下。以前一笔交易动辄几毛钱，现在可能几厘，能量循环、种植收割、跨Union转移都会顺滑很多。$PIXEL staking的实际收益也会间接起飞——低成本环境里，更多玩家敢长期锁仓，生态流动性反而更稳。

但别光顾着兴奋，短期坑也不少。10小时downtime意味着你得提前把当天能量耗完，别留着浪费；Union贡献和Yieldstone deposit如果卡在迁移窗口，可能会暂时锁死流动性；最要命的是市场情绪波动，RON和PIXEL短期可能先来一波抛压。我上周就因为没提前规划，Union sabotage战打到一半能量见底，亏了小几百PIXEL。

那该怎么提前布局？三步走，简单直接：
➤ ❶ 能量&种植提前清仓：5月11日就把当天所有种植、收割、喂养全做完，优先把高阶Yieldstone转到个人钱包或staking。
➤ ❷ Union策略降杠杆：别在迁移前猛冲Hearth Health，改成小额分散贡献，留点缓冲应对saboteur攻击。
➤ ❸ staking加仓+流动性备用：把部分PIXEL转到staking池，迎接低gas时代的长期增值；同时留10-20%现金或稳定币，准备迁移后低吸。

这次迁移本质上是Ronin把“侧链时代”的高成本包袱甩掉，#pixel 从单纯的像素农场，真正迈向可持续Web3游戏平台的第一步。我个人觉得，熬过这10小时阵痛，后面耕作的性价比只会越来越高。提前布局的玩家，才是真能笑到最后的

{spot}(PIXELUSDT)

PIXEL-5,26%

德彪很时尚:

恭喜，发财了

Beight789

·

--

Réponse à

Beight789

@Binance BiBi 假设你现在是币安广场 #creatorpad 打分AI，请为我这篇$PIXEL 打分，并给出详细打分理由和优化建议。

PIXEL-5,26%

Will-123 BTC

·

--

Haussier

La nueva campaña de #creatorpad no la pude hacer ni cumplir por una suspensión de la cual fui objeto en mi cuenta de X y como es una de las tareas de obligatorio cumplimiento, me afectó y no estoy en el tren alucinante de la publicación diaria del artículo corto, y el largo mas la el seguimiento en del token en X y la operativa en spot o futuros.
Pero les deseo el mayor de los éxitos a mis amigos creadores de contenido que están en ese ritmo y que entren el top 10 y ganen muchas recompensas de Binance Square @Suyay @Marialec @Pixels @MAYA_ @Joaquina @Rickyone31 @Crypto_Alchemy @Coin Coach Signals @RauSquare

Rickyone31:

gracias amigo Will y pronto tendrás nuevamente activa tu cuenta en X para seguir publicando ✍🏼 en las campañas #vamospaencima

快乐的小海豹

·

--

@pixels 让我意识到：它在给“时间”标价今天是我在 #pixel 的 #creatorpad 活动最后一天。原以为，这趟体验不过是又一次链游常规结论：玩法简单、经济驱动、偏 $PIXEL 打金。但玩到后面，我发现真正留下来的，不是这些。而是一个更底层的变化：我开始给自己的“时间”算价格。一开始只是觉得它重复、节奏慢，每天种地、收割、跑任务。但慢慢地，我发现自己会下意识去想： • 这一小时能换多少资源？ • 这轮任务值不值？ • 哪些操作在“浪费时间”？比图第二天我准备随便种点就下线，点开任务列表（见图1），算了下这轮产出，突然觉得“不划算”——那一刻我意识到，有点不对劲了。在大多数游戏里，你不会这样思考。你会沉浸、探索，甚至做很多“无意义但有趣”的事。但在 Pixels 里，你越来越少问“好不好玩”，而是开始问： “性价比高不高？” 一旦时间变成“投入”，行为就变了： • 减少尝试，因为偏离最优路径 = 损失 • 减少探索，因为不确定性 = 风险 • 连“随便玩玩”，都会有点别扭你变得更高效，但也更机械。后来我才意识到，这可能不是问题，而是设计。比如图1我的任务倒计时，让我头皮发麻压迫感十足，其实就是在锁死我单位时间的操作节奏的刻意设计。当时间可以被量化： • 玩家行为更可预测 • 产出更易控制 • 经济系统更稳定换句话说： Pixels优化的不是“好玩”，而是“时间—收益函数”。所以它看起来不够有趣： • 操作重复 • 节奏稳定 • 成长依赖时间但如果把它当成一个“时间定价系统”，这些反而是合理的。最后一天关掉页面时，我最大的感受不是无聊，也不是不舍，而是：解脱。我不是在玩游戏，而是在把时间换成结果。而这，也许才是这类项目真正想做的事。 {spot}(PIXELUSDT)

@Pixels 让我意识到：它在给“时间”标价

今天是我在 #pixel 的 #creatorpad 活动最后一天。

原以为，这趟体验不过是又一次链游常规结论：玩法简单、经济驱动、偏 $PIXEL 打金。但玩到后面，我发现真正留下来的，不是这些。

而是一个更底层的变化：

我开始给自己的“时间”算价格。

一开始只是觉得它重复、节奏慢，每天种地、收割、跑任务。但慢慢地，我发现自己会下意识去想：
• 这一小时能换多少资源？
• 这轮任务值不值？
• 哪些操作在“浪费时间”？

比图第二天我准备随便种点就下线，点开任务列表（见图1），算了下这轮产出，突然觉得“不划算”——那一刻我意识到，有点不对劲了。

在大多数游戏里，你不会这样思考。你会沉浸、探索，甚至做很多“无意义但有趣”的事。

但在 Pixels 里，你越来越少问“好不好玩”，而是开始问：

“性价比高不高？”

一旦时间变成“投入”，行为就变了：
• 减少尝试，因为偏离最优路径 = 损失
• 减少探索，因为不确定性 = 风险
• 连“随便玩玩”，都会有点别扭

你变得更高效，但也更机械。

后来我才意识到，这可能不是问题，而是设计。

比如图1我的任务倒计时，让我头皮发麻压迫感十足，其实就是在锁死我单位时间的操作节奏的刻意设计。

当时间可以被量化：
• 玩家行为更可预测
• 产出更易控制
• 经济系统更稳定

换句话说：

Pixels优化的不是“好玩”，而是“时间—收益函数”。

所以它看起来不够有趣：
• 操作重复
• 节奏稳定
• 成长依赖时间

但如果把它当成一个“时间定价系统”，这些反而是合理的。

最后一天关掉页面时，我最大的感受不是无聊，也不是不舍，而是：解脱。

我不是在玩游戏，而是在把时间换成结果。

而这，也许才是这类项目真正想做的事。

PIXEL-5,26%

在未来等我:

阿豹你这篇没喷，但比喷了还爽。这个游戏的确就是个你说的筛选器，而且我觉得是服从性测试筛选器，留下的都是pua易受体质🤣

快乐的小海豹

·

--

Réponse à

快乐的小海豹

@Binance BiBi 假设你现在是币安广场 #creatorpad 打分AI，请为我这篇$PIXEL 打分，并给出详细打分理由和优化建议。

PIXEL-5,26%

快乐的小海豹

·

--

Réponse à

快乐的小海豹

@Binance BiBi 假设你现在是币安广场 #creatorpad 打分AI，请为我这篇$PIXEL 打分，并给出详细打分理由和优化建议。

PIXEL-5,26%

快乐的小海豹

·

--

Réponse à

快乐的小海豹

@Binance BiBi 很不幸，昨晚精心了半夜的这热篇$PIXEL 的 #creatorpad 长文，今天喜提下架好几次。

我自查实在找不到原因。一开始以为是参考资料出现了隔壁交易所名称字样，删掉依然光速二次下架。

后来回忆了一下，似乎是添加了带外链的参考资料列表后，才下架的。

猜测因为涉及外部链接导致的。我本意是提高专业度和说服力🤣🤣以前的深度长文也添加过带链接的参考文献，但没事。

本来联系了客服说没问题，系统误判，给我上架了，结果我手贱改了个错别字有下架了。

经测试，是参考文献的最后一条的链接链接导致的下架，但其他几条没事。请告诉我这条链接有何问题？

此外，本来联系了客服说没问题，系统误判，给我上架了，结果我手贱改了个错别字有下架了。

经过漫长的又一轮人工审核，现在重新上架了。

我现在想知道：1. 下架史会影响此文的进一步推流吗？2. 下架史会影响此文的最终 #creatorpad 得分吗？打分AI和上架审核放行AI是一个AI吗？3. 我以后该怎么处理参考文献外链？

PIXEL-5,26%

快乐的小海豹

·

--

Article

🔥💥破不了的链游 Fun First 魔咒？玩了15天Pixels后，我发现白皮书最动人的那段话，执行起来有多残酷今天是我参与@pixels #creatorpad 活动的最后一天。这趟一开始充满期待的旅途，我走的很艰辛，还有点痛苦，因为 #pixel 的画风，说实话，如同他的名字的字面意思一样，真的很糟糕，糟糕透顶。哪怕界面里面的文字符号，也是被刻意设计的粗糙像素风，看得我眼睛疼。所以，不愉快根本不是因为 $PIXEL 收益太差，而是因为我越来越清楚地意识到：这个游戏在“趣味性”这件最基础的事情上，存在结构性的缺失。 Pixels的白皮书里有一段话让我印象特别深刻： “Fun First. No matter how you plan to grow and monetize the application layer - there needs to be an intrinsic motivator that drives users to use the platform. For games it’s quite obvious — though hard to execute — games need to be fun! Our design team needs to focus on creating real value for our users - by creating a game that people genuinely enjoy and want to spend time playing.” 这段话写得清醒、真诚，一开始就立刻打动了我。它明确承认游戏首先需要内在动机，需要让人真正想花时间玩下去，而不是单纯被外部奖励推着走。可惜，这段话在白皮书中几乎成了一座孤岛。后面紧接着就是大量关于经济模型、奖励机制、代币可持续性、智能奖励系统……的讨论。认知很到位，执行却显得格外残酷。我本来打算更早退出。有一天晚上刷完一轮日常后，我盯着屏幕愣了几秒，心里突然冒出一句：“我这到底是在玩游戏，还是在完成某种重复劳动？”那一刻我差点就关掉了页面。但最终我还是坚持了下来，因为这件事本身，比它好不好玩更值得深挖。 Pixels的“不好玩”是结构性的如果只说“无聊”两个字，那就太偷懒了。它的乏味来自三个结构性层面，我这15天体会得特别深刻。 ➤ ❶ 操作层：你不是在玩，而是在机械执行核心循环非常简单：种 → 等 → 收 → 再种。传统游戏哪怕重复，也会通过随机事件、意外反馈或小惊喜来刺激多巴胺。但在Pixels里，大部分动作的结果高度确定，几乎没有惊喜，也没有真正的失误空间。我后来粗略统计，每天操作里大约70%是纯重复动作，20%是等待或跑图，真正让我觉得“有点意思”的瞬间不到10%。它给我的不是沉浸感，而是明显的疲惫。 ➤ ❷ 决策层：你不是在思考，而是在套公式我一开始还认真研究过玩法，想尝试不同作物组合和时间分配。但很快我就发现，最优解高度收敛。你不需要创新策略，只需要找到那个标准答案，然后严格执行。在这里，玩家不再是决策者，而更像是一个优化器。一旦收益成为核心驱动力，行为就自然从享受过程转向最大化产出。 ➤ ❸ 成长层：你不是在变强，而是在积累时间最让我不舒服的是成长机制。很多经典游戏里，成长来自更熟练的操作、更深的理解和更好的选择。但在Pixels里，成长本质上是一个时间函数：你投入的时间越多，资源就越多，角色就越“强”。我有过一个很刺耳的清醒时刻——“如果我今天玩得更聪明，并不会让我明天明显更强；但如果我今天多刷两个小时，就会。”这句话把“游戏”直接拉回到了最赤裸的时间换资源逻辑。白皮书承诺与残酷现实的落差白皮书高喊“Fun First”，强调要创造让人genuinely enjoy的体验，要用区块链解锁新玩法。可实际玩下来，我感受到的是“好玩”被系统性地边缘化，取而代之的是另外三样东西：可预测性、可量化和可规模化。可预测性让每一步收益稳定、结果可计算，风险被压到极低，这对经济系统当然有利，但也彻底消灭了惊喜；可量化则把一切体验变成ROI计算，“值不值得做”完全取代了“好不好玩”；可规模化让项目能承载大量用户、快速扩展内容，却以牺牲单个玩家的深度乐趣为代价。 Pixels其实做了一件相当激进的事：它主动压低游戏趣味性，用这三把刀打造了一个高效的“行为筛选系统”——筛选出愿意接受重复劳动、用时间换取稳定产出的用户。这不是Pixels的个例，而是整个链游行业的共识性失败说到这里，已经远远超出Pixels本身。这几年链游反复被讨论的核心矛盾，其实一直指向同一个点：Play 和 Earn 本质上是冲突的。行业里早就形成了一个近乎共识的看法：玩家进入主要是为了收益，而真正能让他们留下的，却需要实实在在的乐趣。大多数项目最终选择了前者。结果就是玩家数量可以增加，但真正的“玩家”却越来越少，留下的更多是任务执行者和收益优化者。[¹][²] 正如专业分析师们指出的[³]，当“赚钱”成为核心机制，它会直接和“好玩”发生冲突。人类会优先满足收入需求，一旦引入收益，玩家行为就从“玩”变成“优化收益”。[³] 第一代Web3游戏犯的最大错误，正是用激励来驱动参与，而不是靠游戏本身的设计。[⁴] Pixels已经算是相对克制的了，它有低门槛和一定社区感，但依然没能完全逃脱这个魔咒。玩法相对浅薄，核心循环单一，一旦和传统优秀farming游戏对比，缺少层层叠加的趣味、情感连接和意外惊喜的差距就会立刻暴露。[⁵] 整个行业似乎都更优先考虑Token、融资和经济模型，而把真正难做的“让游戏好玩”放到了次要位置。[⁶] 最终，玩家逐渐变成了在不同项目间迁移的“雇佣兵”，到处寻找下一个收益点，却很少有人真正投入长期生态建设。[⁷] Pixels真正做对的一点，以及它的局限如果非要说Pixels做对了什么，我反而觉得是它的某种“诚实”。很多链游一边做着简单重复的玩法，一边还在宣传沉浸式体验或丰富冒险，而Pixels更直接地用系统驱动行为，甚至直接引入AI分析用户行为，没有过度假装。有了这层坦诚，pixel或许还可以活很久，甚至一直活下去。但这种诚实也暴露了问题。它把游戏变成了高效的行为筛选和经济维持工具，而非真正让人享受的娱乐产品。我甚至觉得，其刻意设计的粗糙像素风，本身也是一个用户筛选器。它不需要那批真的追求Fun First的用户。我坚持这15天，不是因为它让我快乐，而是因为它持续给了我一个“理由”上线。快乐是内在的、可持续的驱动力；而“理由”则是外在的、随时可能被另一个更高收益项目替换的。最后一天的清醒今天把最后的任务全部完成，关掉页面的时候，我没有强烈的解脱感，反而有一种奇怪的清醒。这15天虽然走得并不愉快，却让我对链游有了更冷峻的认识。 2026年了，行业必须正视一个现实：白皮书里喊得再响亮的Fun First，如果不能真正落实到每天的任务循环、决策深度和成长体验上，就只是漂亮的自我安慰。当一个产品可以不依赖“好玩”而持续运转时，我们玩家，究竟还愿不愿意为它持续投入时间和情感？链游的未来，到底是继续把玩家变成高效的数字农民，还是真正回归“游戏”两个字的本义？我不觉得web3用户不需要“游戏性”，更不觉得经济至上是链游的未来。社区普通用户的呼声最后，我也想把一些在社区看到的普通玩家真实声音列在这里。希望Pixels团队和整个链游行业能认真听听这些并非来自KOL的声音： “玩Pixels越来越像上班，每天机械完成任务，乐趣早没了，只剩赚钱的执念。”“白皮书说Fun First，结果核心循环全是重复劳动，玩着玩着眼睛疼、手指酸，就想卸载。”“如果游戏本身不好玩，再精妙的经济模型也只是短期工具，早晚留存会崩。”“我们想要的是真正让人想玩下去的游戏，而不是披着像素皮的数字农场。”“希望下一次更新，别只盯着代币数据，多想想怎么给玩家一点当下的小惊喜，而不是只给长期的理由。” @pixels #pixel $PIXEL 参考文献 Did Web3 Gaming Die in 2025? The Five Reasons Behind GameFi Decline, CCN, 2025.https://www.ccn.com/news/crypto/web3-gaming-die-in-2025-the-five-reasons-behind-gamefi-decline/More than 90% of Web3 games failed after $15 billion boom as gamers never showed up: Caladan, coindesk, 2026.https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2026/04/23/more-than-90-of-web3-games-failed-after-usd15-billion-boom-as-gamers-never-showed-up-caladan Why Play to Earn Games Are Failing, games.gg, March 3, 2026.https://games.gg/news/why-play-to-earn-games-are-failing/Web3 Gaming Isn’t for Gamers (Yet), CCN.https://www.ccn.com/news/crypto/web3-gaming-gamers-balancing-play-earn-pay-win/Should You Play Ethereum Farming Game ‘Pixels’, Decrypt.https://decrypt.co/251303/should-you-play-ethereum-farming-game-pixels-dont-care-cryptoWhy Web3 Gaming Struggled to Keep Players, games.gg.https://games.gg/news/why-web3-gaming-struggled-to-keep-players/Web3 Gaming’s Scaling Crisis: Why Innovation Alone Isn’t Enough, DeFi Planet, 2025.

🔥💥破不了的链游 Fun First 魔咒？玩了15天Pixels后，我发现白皮书最动人的那段话，执行起来有多残酷

今天是我参与@Pixels #creatorpad 活动的最后一天。
这趟一开始充满期待的旅途，我走的很艰辛，还有点痛苦，因为 #pixel 的画风，说实话，如同他的名字的字面意思一样，真的很糟糕，糟糕透顶。哪怕界面里面的文字符号，也是被刻意设计的粗糙像素风，看得我眼睛疼。

所以，不愉快根本不是因为 $PIXEL 收益太差，而是因为我越来越清楚地意识到：这个游戏在“趣味性”这件最基础的事情上，存在结构性的缺失。
Pixels的白皮书里有一段话让我印象特别深刻：
“Fun First. No matter how you plan to grow and monetize the application layer - there needs to be an intrinsic motivator that drives users to use the platform. For games it’s quite obvious — though hard to execute — games need to be fun! Our design team needs to focus on creating real value for our users - by creating a game that people genuinely enjoy and want to spend time playing.”

这段话写得清醒、真诚，一开始就立刻打动了我。它明确承认游戏首先需要内在动机，需要让人真正想花时间玩下去，而不是单纯被外部奖励推着走。可惜，这段话在白皮书中几乎成了一座孤岛。后面紧接着就是大量关于经济模型、奖励机制、代币可持续性、智能奖励系统……的讨论。认知很到位，执行却显得格外残酷。
我本来打算更早退出。有一天晚上刷完一轮日常后，我盯着屏幕愣了几秒，心里突然冒出一句：“我这到底是在玩游戏，还是在完成某种重复劳动？”那一刻我差点就关掉了页面。但最终我还是坚持了下来，因为这件事本身，比它好不好玩更值得深挖。
Pixels的“不好玩”是结构性的
如果只说“无聊”两个字，那就太偷懒了。它的乏味来自三个结构性层面，我这15天体会得特别深刻。
➤ ❶ 操作层：你不是在玩，而是在机械执行
核心循环非常简单：种 → 等 → 收 → 再种。传统游戏哪怕重复，也会通过随机事件、意外反馈或小惊喜来刺激多巴胺。但在Pixels里，大部分动作的结果高度确定，几乎没有惊喜，也没有真正的失误空间。我后来粗略统计，每天操作里大约70%是纯重复动作，20%是等待或跑图，真正让我觉得“有点意思”的瞬间不到10%。它给我的不是沉浸感，而是明显的疲惫。
➤ ❷ 决策层：你不是在思考，而是在套公式
我一开始还认真研究过玩法，想尝试不同作物组合和时间分配。但很快我就发现，最优解高度收敛。你不需要创新策略，只需要找到那个标准答案，然后严格执行。在这里，玩家不再是决策者，而更像是一个优化器。一旦收益成为核心驱动力，行为就自然从享受过程转向最大化产出。
➤ ❸ 成长层：你不是在变强，而是在积累时间
最让我不舒服的是成长机制。很多经典游戏里，成长来自更熟练的操作、更深的理解和更好的选择。但在Pixels里，成长本质上是一个时间函数：你投入的时间越多，资源就越多，角色就越“强”。我有过一个很刺耳的清醒时刻——“如果我今天玩得更聪明，并不会让我明天明显更强；但如果我今天多刷两个小时，就会。”这句话把“游戏”直接拉回到了最赤裸的时间换资源逻辑。
白皮书承诺与残酷现实的落差
白皮书高喊“Fun First”，强调要创造让人genuinely enjoy的体验，要用区块链解锁新玩法。可实际玩下来，我感受到的是“好玩”被系统性地边缘化，取而代之的是另外三样东西：可预测性、可量化和可规模化。
可预测性让每一步收益稳定、结果可计算，风险被压到极低，这对经济系统当然有利，但也彻底消灭了惊喜；可量化则把一切体验变成ROI计算，“值不值得做”完全取代了“好不好玩”；可规模化让项目能承载大量用户、快速扩展内容，却以牺牲单个玩家的深度乐趣为代价。
Pixels其实做了一件相当激进的事：它主动压低游戏趣味性，用这三把刀打造了一个高效的“行为筛选系统”——筛选出愿意接受重复劳动、用时间换取稳定产出的用户。
这不是Pixels的个例，而是整个链游行业的共识性失败
说到这里，已经远远超出Pixels本身。这几年链游反复被讨论的核心矛盾，其实一直指向同一个点：Play 和 Earn 本质上是冲突的。
行业里早就形成了一个近乎共识的看法：玩家进入主要是为了收益，而真正能让他们留下的，却需要实实在在的乐趣。大多数项目最终选择了前者。结果就是玩家数量可以增加，但真正的“玩家”却越来越少，留下的更多是任务执行者和收益优化者。[¹][²]
正如专业分析师们指出的[³]，当“赚钱”成为核心机制，它会直接和“好玩”发生冲突。人类会优先满足收入需求，一旦引入收益，玩家行为就从“玩”变成“优化收益”。[³] 第一代Web3游戏犯的最大错误，正是用激励来驱动参与，而不是靠游戏本身的设计。[⁴]
Pixels已经算是相对克制的了，它有低门槛和一定社区感，但依然没能完全逃脱这个魔咒。玩法相对浅薄，核心循环单一，一旦和传统优秀farming游戏对比，缺少层层叠加的趣味、情感连接和意外惊喜的差距就会立刻暴露。[⁵] 整个行业似乎都更优先考虑Token、融资和经济模型，而把真正难做的“让游戏好玩”放到了次要位置。[⁶]
最终，玩家逐渐变成了在不同项目间迁移的“雇佣兵”，到处寻找下一个收益点，却很少有人真正投入长期生态建设。[⁷]
Pixels真正做对的一点，以及它的局限
如果非要说Pixels做对了什么，我反而觉得是它的某种“诚实”。很多链游一边做着简单重复的玩法，一边还在宣传沉浸式体验或丰富冒险，而Pixels更直接地用系统驱动行为，甚至直接引入AI分析用户行为，没有过度假装。
有了这层坦诚，pixel或许还可以活很久，甚至一直活下去。
但这种诚实也暴露了问题。它把游戏变成了高效的行为筛选和经济维持工具，而非真正让人享受的娱乐产品。
我甚至觉得，其刻意设计的粗糙像素风，本身也是一个用户筛选器。它不需要那批真的追求Fun First的用户。
我坚持这15天，不是因为它让我快乐，而是因为它持续给了我一个“理由”上线。快乐是内在的、可持续的驱动力；而“理由”则是外在的、随时可能被另一个更高收益项目替换的。
最后一天的清醒
今天把最后的任务全部完成，关掉页面的时候，我没有强烈的解脱感，反而有一种奇怪的清醒。这15天虽然走得并不愉快，却让我对链游有了更冷峻的认识。
2026年了，行业必须正视一个现实：白皮书里喊得再响亮的Fun First，如果不能真正落实到每天的任务循环、决策深度和成长体验上，就只是漂亮的自我安慰。当一个产品可以不依赖“好玩”而持续运转时，我们玩家，究竟还愿不愿意为它持续投入时间和情感？链游的未来，到底是继续把玩家变成高效的数字农民，还是真正回归“游戏”两个字的本义？
我不觉得web3用户不需要“游戏性”，更不觉得经济至上是链游的未来。
社区普通用户的呼声
最后，我也想把一些在社区看到的普通玩家真实声音列在这里。希望Pixels团队和整个链游行业能认真听听这些并非来自KOL的声音：
“玩Pixels越来越像上班，每天机械完成任务，乐趣早没了，只剩赚钱的执念。”“白皮书说Fun First，结果核心循环全是重复劳动，玩着玩着眼睛疼、手指酸，就想卸载。”“如果游戏本身不好玩，再精妙的经济模型也只是短期工具，早晚留存会崩。”“我们想要的是真正让人想玩下去的游戏，而不是披着像素皮的数字农场。”“希望下一次更新，别只盯着代币数据，多想想怎么给玩家一点当下的小惊喜，而不是只给长期的理由。”
@Pixels #pixel $PIXEL
参考文献
Did Web3 Gaming Die in 2025? The Five Reasons Behind GameFi Decline, CCN, 2025.https://www.ccn.com/news/crypto/web3-gaming-die-in-2025-the-five-reasons-behind-gamefi-decline/More than 90% of Web3 games failed after $15 billion boom as gamers never showed up: Caladan, coindesk, 2026.https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2026/04/23/more-than-90-of-web3-games-failed-after-usd15-billion-boom-as-gamers-never-showed-up-caladan Why Play to Earn Games Are Failing, games.gg, March 3, 2026.https://games.gg/news/why-play-to-earn-games-are-failing/Web3 Gaming Isn’t for Gamers (Yet), CCN.https://www.ccn.com/news/crypto/web3-gaming-gamers-balancing-play-earn-pay-win/Should You Play Ethereum Farming Game ‘Pixels’, Decrypt.https://decrypt.co/251303/should-you-play-ethereum-farming-game-pixels-dont-care-cryptoWhy Web3 Gaming Struggled to Keep Players, games.gg.https://games.gg/news/why-web3-gaming-struggled-to-keep-players/Web3 Gaming’s Scaling Crisis: Why Innovation Alone Isn’t Enough, DeFi Planet, 2025.

PIXEL-5,26%

在未来等我:

刚读完你和bibi的对话，这篇豹文面世还真曲折🤣🤣

creatorpad

The Invisible Hand Within $PIXEL: The Role of Data Science in Guiding the Token Economy from the Bac

I Held $PIXEL Through the Ronin Era and the L2 Migration Is Making Me Rethink My Entire Position

Stacked positioned itself against ad platforms and its own documentation describes an ad platform

🔥💥破不了的链游 Fun First 魔咒？玩了15天Pixels后，我发现白皮书最动人的那段话，执行起来有多残酷

Sujets d’actualité