LOUD, which once occupied over 70% of Kaito Mindshare, now has a market value of less than 3M, and there is hardly any related content on social media anymore.

Well, didn't the project team already say, 'This is a market experiment'? It's totally normal for an experiment to fail (Ma Di face).

To be honest, this whole project gives me the impression of being hasty, as if it was something thought up on a whim.

At the beginning, what attracted users to post content was the 'guaranteed profit expectation' based on token subscriptions, a pure arbitrage temptation. Many people posted content because they thought they could make money from it, and that’s it.

The premise for the project's economic model to function is to have KOLs continuously produce content and attract retail investors, but aside from the initial guaranteed profit opportunity, there’s nothing else for KOLs to post about. For the project team, this is a huge taboo in marketing; if you want others to promote you, at least you need to give them something to promote.

This is actually the fatal flaw of projects that we currently see using InfoFi for cold starts: when you make content production entirely reliant on incentives without building a sustainable content supply system, so-called popularity is merely 'consuming the future'. It looks prosperous on the surface but is actually just spinning its wheels; once expectations fade, all users will quickly withdraw because they never came here to stay from the beginning.

Nevertheless, I still believe that InfoFi is effective. It has been proven that even if a project is terrible, as long as the incentives are in place, the market crowd can still hype it up; if it were a legitimate project, it would definitely yield better results.

Its core value is the structural optimization of marketing: traditional marketing methods also require spending money, whether it's building your own marketing team, outsourcing marketing, or conducting marketing activities, money is spent regardless, so why not find a more cost-effective way?

The problem is not with InfoFi, but rather that the project itself was not prepared to handle the traffic brought by InfoFi. Users can be driven by incentives to produce content, but what happens after that? How is the story told? How does the experience keep up? How is volume converted into trust? These are the fundamental issues.

InfoFi can amplify the project's strengths but can also quickly expose its hollowness. If your product is terrible, no amount of incentives will help. Marketing is never a panacea; the true core competitiveness always lies in the quality and structure of the project itself.