The 2.0 era of mouth-to-mouth promotion has started. Read my report carefully; it won't harm you @Yarm_AI

🐚

Tonight, Yarm released that document, and everyone should have seen it. I looked for some materials to help everyone better understand.

⬇️

💗

Core Mechanism Architecture:

Yarm operates through three key participants in the triangular value exchange:

Yappers (Creators), LPs (Liquidity Providers), Project Parties

The results above

⬆️

See, mouth-to-mouth + attracting funding takes the majority, which I think is a more suitable approach.

🏝️

Mechanism Design

Overlap Score (OS) represents Yarm's core innovation—measuring the overlapping percentage between the top 1,000 Yappers of a project and existing Yarm community members.

Dynamic APY Structure

This creates a powerful feedback loop: higher participation → higher OS → higher APY → more deposits → bigger creator rewards. The more you participate and attract deposits, the more creator rewards you have.

🌊

Gameplay Process: Step-by-step Mechanism

1️⃣

Content Rating: Creators publish content on X; Kaito AI evaluates each account's share of mind contribution.

2️⃣

Fund Pool Launch: Project parties launch limited “Yarms” and preset parameters.

Distribution: The highest-rated Yappers get priority distribution links.

3️⃣

Fund Routing: LPs make deposits through specific Yapper distribution.

4️⃣

Reward Distribution: The fund pool generates profits; Yappers earn a Carry % from the funds they facilitate.

5️⃣

Continuous Optimization: OS is tracked in real-time, dynamically adjusting APY levels.

🦈

Economic Model Analysis: Pros and Cons

Pros:

1️⃣

For Creators: Transforming intangible influence into verifiable on-chain income streams.

2️⃣

For LPs: Providing “socially curated transaction flows” and optimizing returns driven by participation.

3️⃣

For Project Parties: Alternative liquidity guidance and embedding narrative development.

Cons:

4️⃣

Yappers: Earn Carry rewards with zero capital risk.

5️⃣

LPs: Bear all downside risk while relying on the quality of creator participation.

6️⃣

Project Parties: Liquidity dependence on the platform, with potential narrative manipulation risks.

Summary:

Overall, I might give Yarm's narrative a score of 7 out of 10.