Perhaps, not all platforms that “everyone can participate” will benefit everyone in the end.
The "grassroots counterattack dream" of content creators has become more popular than ever in Web3. You no longer need millions of fans, nor are you restricted by the platform. As long as you post and interact, you can participate in early projects, exchange for airdrops, or even get initial shares with your points.
This is not a new narrative. In the past few years, platforms such as Mirror, Lens, and Galxe have already tried similar models. However, what really attracted the attention of ordinary creators was the recently popular content incentive platform - #KAITO $KAITO
. It uses the slogans of "content is an asset" and "everyone is a node", attracting a large number of ordinary creators, content enthusiasts, and even investment research practitioners to participate in the list.
Kaito's concept is simple and appealing:
You don’t need to be a big V or compete for capital, you can earn points by posting, commenting, and interacting;
Points are not just a number, they can also be exchanged for airdrops of future projects or qualifications to participate in early-stage project investments;
A seemingly fair way of participation makes every ordinary user feel that they are only one step away from "grassroots rise".
It seems that this is a make-up lesson for the “content equality” that Web2 failed to deliver. But here comes the question:
How is the value of points defined? Is it based on content quality, social interaction, or algorithmic preferences?
Is the logic of the ranking transparent? Does Kaito's algorithm distribute content incentives fairly, or is it more inclined to stimulate users to get involved in short-term competition? Does everyone really have the opportunity to get a good ranking?
Is the so-called "content equality" just a more sophisticated involutionary game? Does the incentive mechanism really reward high-quality content? Have ordinary creators once again become a tool for platform growth?
In fact, many early users and grassroots creators gradually felt a familiar sense of "being involved" after excitedly investing:
Running around for rankings, trying and failing for points;
A large number of creators began to imitate the so-called "list style", and truly valuable original ideas were diluted in the routine;
There is no real sense of content resonance between users, but rather it is more of a competitive or even confrontational relationship.
On the surface, Kaito has successfully “financed content,” but a deeper look raises questions:
Is the essential expression and sharing value of content being gradually eroded by a new set of operating mechanisms and algorithmic anxiety?
Is Kaito a sample of the new generation of content economy, or just another round of “workers’ optimistic fantasy”?
Starting from its product logic and operation mechanism, I hope that after reading this article, you can make a clearer judgment:
Is Kaito's model suitable for our long-term investment? Is it changing the rules of the content industry, or is it just continuing the old drama of "content involution" in a different form?
1. Behind the points mechanism is the “game reality” of grassroots creators
Kaito has given many content creators an illusion: as long as they are willing to write, they will have the opportunity to be "seen" and get points, and monetization is no longer a distant dream.
But the truth is not that simple. Its incentive mechanism is indeed self-consistent at the product level - publishing, interacting, ranking, and collecting points - but once you stand from the perspective of content creators, the rules of the game are not so friendly. The more you participate, the more you will realize that this is actually a "platform game" with limited resources, many participants, and inequality.
1. It seems that “everyone can participate”, but the participation threshold is actually not low
One of Kaito’s most appealing narratives is: “Don’t look at the number of fans, only the quality of the content.” This sentence sounds extremely egalitarian, as if anyone, as long as they dare to express themselves and are willing to write, can realize the wealth code of quickly monetizing content.
But when you really get involved, you will find that this promise of "everyone can participate" actually contains many hidden barriers.
First, you must understand the algorithm's preferences. Kaito will not actively tell you "how to write", but it will use the list to tell you "what writing will score points". You need to write content "like the algorithm likes" - with clear opinions, market resonance, and in the direction of the project that the platform is currently focusing on.
Secondly, writing only content related to the projects recommended by the platform is almost a prerequisite for "making the list". You need to identify the popular projects and keywords on the platform this week, such as$HUMA $VIRTUAL
Etc., and then build content around it and provide opinions. This is not free writing, but more like "propositional writing".
If you go into more detail, you also need to know how to choose the time, layout, add pictures, and understand how to trigger interaction, and finally gain traffic.
At the same time, the platform has further clarified the direction through the interactive weight mechanism. This strategy of "freedom on the surface, but guidance in reality" is particularly subtle: if the content you publish is liked, forwarded, or commented on by those big Vs or official accounts with certification marks, the points will be significantly increased. Gradually, you will find that this set of rules invisibly determines what kind of expression is more likely to be seen and what kind of content is more likely to get points.
So you start chasing hot topics, deliberately posting keywords, the more popular the title, the better, and the higher the emotion, the more points you get. You know this is an "effective" way, so you learn to write content that "the platform thinks is right" instead of what you really want to express.
What’s more subtle is that once this mode of catering to algorithms becomes a habit, it will soon compress the space for your true expression. You will find that your content is becoming more and more homogenized, and your views and structures are becoming more and more similar.
If this continues, you will feel a strong sense of mental exhaustion: you will begin to doubt the meaning of your writing, and you will also begin to reflect on whether this kind of pandering and compromise is worth it. Kaito does not actively force you, but it quietly shapes a new creative norm through algorithms and point systems. Under this norm, the freedom of writing is being redefined.
Ultimately, Kaito's so-called "low threshold for participation" means more that you are "qualified to enter the examination room", but whether you can pass or even stand out still depends highly on your understanding of the platform mechanism, your control over the creative rhythm, the professionalism of content expression, and even the consumption of your connections to obtain continuous promotion and exposure of content.
For many wild content creators, or even any ordinary person who pays attention to the chain, this is not an equal opportunity, but another round of writing game of "competing in cognition, execution, algorithm adaptability, and connections."
2. It creates a sense of “eternal running bunny light” anxiety
Kaito's ranking mechanism seems to encourage "healthy competition" - the weekly ranking is reset and re-scored, and everyone has a chance to turn the tables. But for creators who really participate in the long term, this mechanism is more like a never-ending physical tug-of-war.
You spent a whole week thinking about content, grabbing popularity, watching interactions, and earning points. Finally, you ranked high and thought you had finally "made it". But when the time came and the list was refreshed, you were back to square one. You were not eliminated, but asked to prove again that "you deserve to be seen".
This cycle makes it difficult for people to truly feel "sense of sedimentation" - hard work is necessary, but hard work does not compound, and you are always in a state of anxiety that "you may fall behind next time."
This system is not cruel, it is even very "scientific", but for grassroots creators, it does not convey "your content deserves to be seen", but: "You have to win the permission of fate again every week."
3. The so-called “equal rights system” is also being quietly stratified
Kaito is apparently engaged in "grassroots content economy", but if you pay attention to its rankings, you will find:
This idea of "equal rights" is actually the key to Kaito's rapid growth.
If you keep an eye on the rankings, interactions, and exposure for a long time, you will slowly discover that equal rights are real, but stratification is also real.
You will notice that those who always top the list have some "default labels" - they may be early users, have been on the list before, or have frequent interactions with the platform officials. Not to mention some KOLs, who have high natural weights and can easily top the list even if they post something casually (there is also the recognition of the English area algorithm mechanism, and the overall list is almost all foreigners).
You will begin to realize that although the platform does not explicitly state "who is more important", the recommendation mechanism, interaction weighting, and resource support have been quietly demarcating circles: certain accounts can be more easily "seen".
For the truly unknown, even if the content quality is not inferior, it is difficult for them to have the "starting point of being seen".
It is not malicious, but it cannot really break the centralized resource tilt structure: KOL interaction, resource allocation, and list exposure always give priority to "voices that are easier to amplify." This is a rational decision made by platform operators, but for ordinary writers, it has become an invisible ceiling.
Therefore, the gap between creators is no longer just about content capabilities, but also about starting resources, interactive relationships, and even whether they are "noticed" by the platform.
This does not mean that the grassroots have no chance, but in this system, the real "fairness" is never at the starting line, but in the protracted war. And in the protracted war, resources, time, and connections still determine the final stratification.
2. Mechanism fairness ≠ operational equality, Kaito is still a few steps away from "real content equality"
1. Lacking an “altruistic mechanism”, Kaito can hardly give creators a sense of certainty about long-term growth
A truly excellent content ecosystem will not only focus on the current performance of creators, but also care about their future growth path. What creators need is not just "how many points can I get now", but "what other abilities can I accumulate through the platform and what long-term growth opportunities can I get".
But Kaito's current points system is clearly more focused on short-term performance rather than long-term development. Points and rewards are designed as a one-time transaction rather than a long-term accumulation system. It's like a repetitive game with very limited room for improvement.
More importantly, this mechanism ignores the long-term incentive needs of content creators. Creation is essentially a kind of emotional labor. Users invest passion, time and creativity, but apart from short-term points and rewards, it is difficult to see long-term value precipitation. Without a clear "advanced path", content growth system or ability evaluation mechanism, it is difficult for creators to clearly see their growth space on the platform in one or three years.
This lack of growth expectations can easily lead creators to burnout: Why do I keep writing, but always feel like I am standing still? When the enthusiasm of short-term incentives is over, and there is a lack of long-term support, creators are likely to leave. The content ecosystem that Kaito wants to create should have been fertile ground for content production, but due to the lack of an altruistic incentive mechanism, it has gradually become a content consumption factory.
2. Lack of a sense of community, it is difficult for creators to "see each other"
At the same time, Kaito's more serious problem is the weakness of community building. The interaction between creators has become utilitarian and shallow, and likes and reposts are more out of consideration for points rather than recognition and resonance of the content itself. When the bond between creators becomes "points and interests" rather than "content empathy", it is difficult for creators to establish a real sense of connection or collective belonging.
This also makes the Kaito ecosystem look lively, but it cannot form a stable and lasting user group. Once the platform's incentives decline and the motivation for interaction disappears, users can easily retreat quickly, because their original intention of coming here is not to "create content together", but to chase short-term points. The lack of a content-centered community atmosphere makes it difficult for users to stay for a long time and interact deeply.
Ultimately, Kaito is more like a sophisticated content points game than a true creator community. Without an altruistic design centered on user growth, it is difficult to achieve true content equality and ecological sustainability.
3. The ideal “content rights” should not be used to cause anxiety
The emergence of Kaito is essentially an experiment in the Web3 content ecosystem, which attempts to explore a content equality model where "everyone can participate". However, the experiment also exposed the subtle gap between mechanism design and operational implementation - mechanism equality does not mean equality of creator experience, and the popularity of the points ranking cannot represent the true long-term reflection of the value of the content.
We do need more content platforms like Kaito that dare to try new mechanisms. But what we need is not another set of KPIs and data anxiety, nor another "content speculation machine" for short-term arbitrage. True content equality should allow creators to see the future growth path clearly, have a sense of continuous accumulation, and feel the real freedom of expression and respect.
Writing is ultimately the right and choice of the expresser. No matter how the platform mechanism changes, every creator needs to think carefully in their heart: What is the purpose of writing? Is it to get points in one go, or to continuously accumulate their own voice and influence? Is it to chase the short-term hot spots of the algorithm, or to establish a long-term and stable content ecosystem?
Kaito has taken an important step, but creators also have the right to demand that the platform provide clearer rules, more humane mechanisms, and more genuine respect for values.
I hope that everyone who enters the content world will have the opportunity for long-term growth, rather than just a points game where they can never catch up to the finish line.