Yesterday, I interpreted the latest rules of the Vader Yapping leaderboard, and it turns out there are still 'loopholes' that I found effective through personal testing. Moreover, comparing yesterday's data, today's leaderboard data has become increasingly competitive; the lowest mental share on yesterday's leaderboard was 0.18%, while today the mental share for the 100th place has reached 0.23%. The mental share for the top entries has soared to 0.89%, while the second place's share is at 0.6%.

The gap between TOP1 and TOP2 is essentially a cliff-like difference. I also looked at the tweet that leaderboard 1 posted yesterday, and there was one particularly interesting piece. He mentioned that he browsed the top 100 of @Vader_AI_ and found that 90% of them had never been heard of. After randomly checking many of them, I found that a lot of the interactions were basically 0 (most likely bots), and the view count for tweets older than 10 hours was less than 100 times (nobody was really looking). Perhaps this presents an opportunity for 'attention arbitrage' by distributing $VADER holdings and using multiple accounts to 'output' VADER Yapping, ensuring a certain market share.

Although @VaderResearch responded promptly in his comments section, indicating that adjustments are still being made and to check back in a few days. It's clear there will be changes. However, looking back, I still find it quite interesting; everyone thinks the current mechanism has issues, yet they choose to 'join if they can’t win'.

To give feedback on my testing results, I also mentioned VADER a few more times yesterday. Indeed, the points have increased, which is a real-life depiction of 'the more you do, the more you gain'. Honestly, I love it too much🤣

However, yesterday VADER also mentioned a rule of 'greater than or equal to 3'. Tweets that exceed three will be sorted based on data to select the top three for points. To be honest, it's quite challenging to output three pieces of content daily. If it's not AI-generated but self-written, it would consume a lot of time. According to the current mechanism, it would definitely lead to losses; let's wait and see after the rules are adjusted.