Tiger Research: If I were the founder of Kaito, how would I make decisions in the face of the changes brought by InfoFi?

This report is written by Tiger Research. The drastic changes in the API policy of the X platform (formerly Twitter) have led to the instantaneous collapse of the InfoFi ecosystem. As a leading project in the industry, if I were the founder of Kaito, what feasible transformation paths would be available at this current juncture?

Core Insights

• Ecosystem Collapse in Three Days: The policy adjustments of the X platform destroyed the InfoFi ecosystem in just three days, completely exposing the structural fragility of Web3 projects' excessive reliance on centralized platforms.

• Five Survival Paths: The InfoFi project currently faces five options: complete shutdown, transformation into a bounty funding platform, adopting a Korean-style sponsorship model, multi-platform expansion, or evolving into an MCN-style KOL management model.

• Evolution of InfoFi 2.0: The future model will be more refined and controllable, shifting from "permissionless scaling" to "audited high-quality collaborations."

• Fundamental Challenges: Establishing a fair incentive compensation system and revalidating the intrinsic value of tokens remain significant hurdles that the industry must overcome.

1. The "Collapse" of InfoFi in Three Days

Source: X(@nikitabier)

On January 15, X platform's product head Nikita Bier issued a brief notice, clearly stating that applications inducing users to post through rewards would no longer be allowed to operate on the platform. For the InfoFi sector, this was tantamount to a "death sentence."

According to the timeline disclosed by Kaito founder Yu Hu, the events unfolded as follows:

• January 13: Kaito received an email from the X platform, indicating a possible review and requesting clarification.

• January 14: The X platform sent a formal legal notice, and Kaito submitted a legal response the same day.

• January 15: The official statement was publicly released, and Kaito learned of the final decision simultaneously with the entire industry.

The market reaction was extremely severe, with the price of $KAITO plummeting. The community criticized the team for claiming they had a contingency plan but failing to provide a timely warning. Kaito subsequently issued an emergency statement, explaining that they had previously resolved similar disputes through legal means, thus misjudging the negotiation space for this incident.

Lesson: A single decision by a centralized company ended an emerging Web3 category in just three days. This state of having "life and death power" in the hands of others suffocates the entire ecosystem.

2. If I Were the Founder of InfoFi Now

Does this mean InfoFi has reached a dead end? Projects like Kaito are already preparing for their next development plans. However, what is needed now is not a continuation of the old paths but a completely different "InfoFi 2.0" version.

If I were the founder of an InfoFi project like Kaito, what feasible options would actually be available now? By examining these potential paths forward, we can begin to outline the next phase of InfoFi.

2.1 Complete Shutdown

This is the simplest and most direct option: stop operations before funds are completely exhausted. In reality, many small and medium-sized projects may enter a "zombie phase"—essentially inactive, occasionally posting some social media updates, and then slowly fading from public view.

Given that the "product-market fit" (PMF) established around the X platform has now vanished, choosing to shut down may be more realistic than continuing to burn money in search of an elusive new direction. If the project still holds usable data assets, these can be sold to other companies to recover some residual value. Therefore, most smaller InfoFi projects may choose this path.

2.2 Bounty-Based Funding Platform

If access to X's API is no longer possible, another option is to revert to an earlier business model: KOLs directly apply for relevant activities and receive rewards after submitting content and undergoing manual review.

Source: Scribble

The model represented by Scribble is a typical example. The project releases funding tasks in the form of bounties, KOLs create and submit content for platform review, and upon approval, they receive compensation. This is a "submit first, review later" model, rather than relying on real-time tracking via API.

This structure can be expanded as an open platform: the platform only provides matchmaking and infrastructure, while each project manages its own activities. As more projects participate, the pool of KOLs will also expand; and the growth of the KOL base, in turn, provides more options for project parties. The downside is that KOLs face significant uncertainty; if their submitted content is rejected, the time and effort invested are wasted. After multiple failures, high-quality KOLs are likely to leave the platform.

2.3 Korean-Style Sponsored Blog Model

The Korean sponsored blog model follows a "select first, manage later" approach, rather than post-review. Institutions like Revu have been using this model for over a decade.

The process is very clear: project parties set a target number of participants and publish activities, applicants submit applications, and project parties select suitable KOLs based on follower count, past performance, and other data. Selected KOLs receive clear creative guidelines, and content is reviewed by operators after publication. If it does not meet standards, revisions are requested, and penalties apply for missing deadlines.

In this model, KOLs can effectively avoid wasted efforts. Once selected, as long as they follow the guidelines, compensation is basically guaranteed. Unlike the bounty-based system, there is no risk of being unjustly rejected after completing the work. From the project party's perspective, quality control becomes easier since only pre-screened participants are chosen.

2.4 Multi-Platform Expansion

If the X platform is no longer a fertile ground, the next choice is inevitably to turn to YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. In the Web3 space, there is already a strong push beyond the X platform. The mainstream view is that true growth requires a shift from platforms dominated by crypto-native users to more mainstream channels with broader audiences.

The main advantage of this path is the much larger potential user base compared to the X platform, especially in emerging markets like Southeast Asia and Latin America, where TikTok and Instagram have a strong influence. Additionally, each platform operates under different algorithms, so even if one channel faces restrictions, overall operations can continue.

However, the trade-off brings the challenge of increased operational complexity. On the X platform, it typically only requires reviewing text-based posts; on YouTube, content length and production quality are crucial; on TikTok, the first three seconds of a video determine its performance; and on Instagram, the execution and format quality of Stories must be evaluated. This requires expertise tailored to specific platforms and may even necessitate the development of entirely new internal tools. Given the differing API policies and data collection methods across platforms, this is essentially akin to rebuilding the entire project from scratch. Moreover, policy risks remain ever-present, as any platform could suddenly change rules like the X platform did. However, diversifying activities across multiple platforms can significantly reduce dependence on a single platform, making this the only option that offers substantial scalability for larger projects.

2.5 MCN-Style KOL Management

In the Web2 MCN (Multi-Channel Network) model, the brand value of KOLs is crucial. In the Web3 space, this influence is even more decisive: narrative-driven capital means that a comment from an opinion leader can directly impact token prices.

Successful InfoFi projects typically have formed a group of active and highly loyal KOLs, who have grown through months of deep engagement on the platform. Project parties can retain this group and shift to a data-driven management model, rather than starting from scratch to find creators. This differs from the traditional Web2 MCN that relies on continuously discovering new talent.

The MCN-style structure implies establishing formal contractual relationships rather than loose selective participation. With accumulated historical data and established relationships, the platform can exert greater influence within the Web3 ecosystem and negotiate better business deals. For InfoFi projects, this requires a robust management system, with data becoming a core asset. If KOLs can be precisely guided through data and the project parties provided with professional, data-driven GTM (Go-To-Market) strategies, this model will offer a lasting competitive advantage.

3. InfoFi 2.0

The collapse of the InfoFi ecosystem has left two profound lessons for the Web3 world:

1. The Irony of Decentralization: Many Web3 projects are deeply reliant on the centralized X platform, and a single decision from X is enough to destroy the entire system.

2. Limitations of Incentive Design: While the reward mechanism successfully attracted a large number of participants, it lacked effective methods to control content quality. The proliferation of low-quality content provided X with a clear reason to intervene.

Source: X(@nikitabier)

Does this mean that the road for InfoFi has come to an end?

Not entirely. A few projects that have found "product-market fit" may survive by changing their business forms. They can turn to multi-platform expansion, curate high-quality activities, or transform into MCN-style management.

InfoFi 2.0 may become smaller, more controllable, and more focused on content quality. It will shift from an open, permissionless platform to a rigorously vetted professional network, resembling an integrated marketing platform that combines local GTM efforts and components like offline advertising.

However, fundamental issues still remain on the table. Joel Mun from Tiger Research points out that once a reward mechanism is introduced, participants will inevitably seek ways to exploit system loopholes, making it extremely difficult to design a fair incentive structure. This speculative behavior can lead to the production of low-quality content and create a negative feedback loop that could undermine the platform.

Additionally, researcher David raised a more fundamental question: he believes that the value maintenance of the InfoFi token has relied more on expectations of staking airdrops and belief in a certain narrative in the past, rather than on the actual performance of the platform. Now, both have lost relevance. This raises a direct question: why would investors want to buy InfoFi tokens in the future?

To ensure that InfoFi 2.0 can truly survive, these questions must be answered clearly and convincingly. If a project cannot align with the interests of its token holders, it cannot achieve true sustainability.

Original link