@KaitoAI and @cookiedotfun's fierce battle is too cliché, with similar versions appearing throughout history, leading everyone to reach an unspoken understanding.


They may support one side for certain reasons, but whether they are upstream project parties in the industry chain, peer agencies, or downstream KOLs, they all inherently support both sides to fight.


➤ Who benefits? The economic logic of platform competition


The competition between InfoFi's two giants is essentially an oligopoly competition among bilateral platforms, with all non-core players' bonuses coming from the incentive spillover effects generated by this competition.


Unlike the traditional concept of consumer surplus, the beneficiaries here are mostly content producers, i.e., mid-tier KOLs like me; as well as intermediaries in the industry, such as traditional agencies @MangoLabs_ @JELabs2024 @BlockFocus11, etc.; and even various project parties.


The InfoFi platform, in order to attract them into its ecosystem, has to engage in content competition with higher points, more airdrops, and lower participation thresholds.


Once competition heats up, the platform will have to yield the profit space originally reserved for top-tier or institutional users to mid-tier creators. This release of asymmetric bonuses is the core logic that attracts a large number of strong verbal champions to quickly flock to InfoFi.


➤ Future direction: Beyond wins and losses, variables worth paying attention to


In this type of war, short-term wins and losses are not important. Kaito has a stronger tech stack and institutional resources, while Cookie has a more flexible user system and community mobilization capability. However, what truly determines the future shape of the InfoFi ecosystem is often not which side wins, but whether the ecological structure birthed by this competition is open, diverse, and sustainable enough.


❚ The following trends may emerge in the future


- Protocolization of content layer: Information contribution behavior is standardized, and forms such as #Snaps, tasks, and graphics can interoperate across platforms.


- Rise of multi-platform airdrop binders: Third-party task platforms like AlphaDrops will form independent forces. Currently, I see the Flywheel Group's order reward as a very interesting case.


- KOL traffic reflexive enhancement: Early active participants among mid-tier players accumulate transferable reputation through rounds of tasks and incentives.


In other words, as Kaito and Cookie compete, they may each achieve local victories, but the most valuable attention scheduling power may not necessarily be in the hands of the platform, but more likely flow to the rapidly evolving content nodes in this melee, such as the fast-growing KOLs.


➤ For KOLs: How to maximize benefits in this war?


This is a rare low-barrier, participatory, and monetizable infrastructure-level game. As a KOL, one should consider not just which side to stand on, but:


- Bilateral opening, not betting on one side: Maintain synchronous participation in both sides' task mechanisms, with Cookie doing Snaps and Kaito producing content/maps, not missing any round of airdrop binding windows.


- Competing for algorithm bonus traffic: Currently, Cookie's point structure is more favorable to newcomers, while Kaito's elite mechanism leaves a gap in the mid-tier, which is precisely an opportunity for growing KOLs to break through.


- Establish cross-platform reputation anchor points: Unify content and identity markers to form chain trust identity labels in multiple tasks/recommendation systems, such as the often-discussed IP.


- Reverse becoming a source of traffic: Become an entry-level node for project parties and platforms, actively distribute content, organize tasks, and transform into ecological agents, binding future traffic paths. Teacher @yueya_eth is currently a standout in practicing this step.


#InfoFi