for the past four months, i’ve been running a firsthand experiment with infofi on crypto twitter. i wanted to understand what this ecosystem feels like from the inside, not just from leaderboard screenshots and success stories.

one thing i decided early on: i wasn’t going to use my main account. my main account has around 17,000 followers and a community i’ve been building for nearly five years. it has reach, trust, history, and a high x score. if i had used it, i probably would’ve ranked high on leaderboards with relatively little effort. but i also knew what infofi participation really requires: shilling emerging projects, promoting tokens before they exist, and amplifying narratives that may or may not age well.

i didn’t want to put that risk on my community. so instead, i used an alt account. it originally had about 2,700 followers. i keep this account as a backup in case my main account ever gets suspended or locked... which has happened before.

before committing, i looked at the main infofi platforms: wallchain, kaito, mindo, xeet, cookie. i made accounts, reviewed campaigns, watched how people behaved, and talked to friends already participating.

at one point, i tried doing multiple platforms at once. that didn’t last.

it became obvious very quickly that the only way to avoid instant burnout was to focus on one. i ultimately chose wallchain because it seemed more accessible to smaller creators and slightly more structured.

over four months, i participated in more than a dozen campaigns. i ranked in the reward zones multiple times. on paper, i did “fine.” in reality, the results were underwhelming.

most infofi projects are startups. the rewards they promise are usually contingent on a future token generation event. if that launch is delayed, underperforms, or never happens, the rewards are effectively theoretical.

you’re not getting paid in dollars. you’re getting a promise.

after four months of participation, the only confirmed airdrop i actually received was from covalent (their speedrun focused campaign). my leaderboard rank put me in a reward tier under $50.

four months.
dozens of campaigns.
hundreds of posts.
thousands of replies.

under $50.

infofi is framed as content creation, but in practice it’s attention extraction. you’re expected to:

• produce original content daily

• actively use the products you’re promoting

• avoid obvious ai usage (even though everyone uses ai)

• reply constantly to high-ranking accounts

• engage strategically with people who have more clout than you

• stay visible, agreeable, and online

some people are doing thousands of replies each day.

i made a personal rule that i wouldn’t spend more than two hours a day on this. even that became difficult. between research, posting, replying, and tracking campaigns, it regularly went over.

and sometimes it costs money too to participate on the platforms the campaigns are advertising... you need some liquidity usually and there's typically small gas fees for trading or swapping cypto, buying nfts, staking, etc. but there's incentive to do so in hopes of gaining rewards multipliers and ranking higher on the leaderboard that determines the size of your token airdrop.

after watching this ecosystem closely, one thing became very clear: airdrop farmers are not content creators. they’re operating under different incentives.

most infofi content is low-effort, high-volume ai output. whitepapers get pasted into chatgpt. tweets get reworded. threads get spun up at scale. platforms claim they’re cracking down on this, but the leaderboards suggest otherwise.

i’m not anti-ai, i use ai every day. i voice-to-text my ideas because i have a baby and limited time. i use ai to help structure and publish my own thoughts. that doesn’t make my content fake... it makes it sustainable.

the issue isn’t ai. it’s lazy ai.

most infofi posts aren’t interesting. they don’t teach you anything. they don’t feel human. they exist to meet quotas, not to communicate insight.

you can see it yourself. search any active wallchain campaign. it’s trending, but is it memorable? is it valuable? is it something you’d return to? usually not.

one thing i want to be clear about: infofi (also called attentionfi, socialfi) does appear to be effective at one specific thing. volume.

from the company side, the intended outcomes of these campaigns seem to be some mix of raising awareness about a token, increasing perceived momentum before launch, potentially building community, and ultimately supporting token price action.

whether all of those goals are actually being met is debatable. but one outcome is undeniable.

these campaigns generate huge amounts of content (usually on x) around a brand and its associated keywords.

when a project is running an infofi campaign, you can type its name, ticker, or core keywords into x and see hundreds (sometimes thousands) of posts created within hours. threads, replies, quotes, reposts. constant activity.

some of it is from real people.
some of it is from bots.
some of it is thoughtful.
a lot of it is not.

but the result is the same: the brand becomes highly visible. it trends. it looks active. it looks talked about.

and depending on your philosophy, you could argue that any attention is good attention. from that perspective, infofi works. it spreads names, narratives, and keywords at scale. it manufactures the appearance of relevance and momentum, at least in the short term.

the harder question is how valuable that really is.

does trending on x translate into long-term trust?
does high-volume posting translate into genuine users?
does awareness translate into investment in a token, a brand, or an ip?

maybe ...depending on the project, the timing, and the audience.

i don’t think it’s accurate to say that nothing comes out of infofi. something clearly does. but whether that something aligns with a project’s deeper goals (or a creator’s long-term well-being) is where things get murkier.

that’s why i think it’s important for startups running these campaigns to be honest with themselves about what they’re actually buying: visibility, not loyalty.

and for creators, especially those with established reputations or limited time, it’s worth seriously weighing the risks and benefits before participating.

for some people, there’s less to lose.
for others, there’s a lot.

after four months, my takeaway is simple: infofi is exhausting, time-intensive, and misaligned with how i want to create and live.

for people with nothing else competing for their time, or who genuinely enjoy the grind, it can make sense. i’m not judging that.

but for me (especially as someone intentionally moving toward a digital detox) it’s not worth the tradeoff.

the return on investment wasn’t there.
the content quality wasn’t there.
and the constant attention extraction isn’t something i want to build a life around.

infofi isn’t broken because it’s hard.

it’s broken because it mistakes volume for value, and attention for meaning.

and i’m done mining my mind for tokens that may never exist.

for the past four months, i’ve been running a firsthand experiment with infofi on crypto twitter. i wanted to understand what this ecosystem feels like from the inside, not just from leaderboard screenshots and success stories.

one thing i decided early on: i wasn’t going to use my main account. my main account has around 17,000 followers and a community i’ve been building for nearly five years. it has reach, trust, history, and a high x score. if i had used it, i probably would’ve ranked high on leaderboards with relatively little effort. but i also knew what infofi participation really requires: shilling emerging projects, promoting tokens before they exist, and amplifying narratives that may or may not age well.

i didn’t want to put that risk on my community. so instead, i used an alt account. it originally had about 2,700 followers. i keep this account as a backup in case my main account ever gets suspended or locked... which has happened before.

before committing, i looked at the main infofi platforms: wallchain, kaito, mindo, xeet, cookie. i made accounts, reviewed campaigns, watched how people behaved, and talked to friends already participating.

at one point, i tried doing multiple platforms at once. that didn’t last.

it became obvious very quickly that the only way to avoid instant burnout was to focus on one. i ultimately chose wallchain because it seemed more accessible to smaller creators and slightly more structured.

over four months, i participated in more than a dozen campaigns. i ranked in the reward zones multiple times. on paper, i did “fine.” in reality, the results were underwhelming.

most infofi projects are startups. the rewards they promise are usually contingent on a future token generation event. if that launch is delayed, underperforms, or never happens, the rewards are effectively theoretical.

you’re not getting paid in dollars. you’re getting a promise.

after four months of participation, the only confirmed airdrop i actually received was from covalent (their speedrun focused campaign). my leaderboard rank put me in a reward tier under $50.

four months.
dozens of campaigns.
hundreds of posts.
thousands of replies.

under $50.

infofi is framed as content creation, but in practice it’s attention extraction. you’re expected to:

• produce original content daily

• actively use the products you’re promoting

• avoid obvious ai usage (even though everyone uses ai)

• reply constantly to high-ranking accounts

• engage strategically with people who have more clout than you

• stay visible, agreeable, and online

some people are doing thousands of replies each day.

i made a personal rule that i wouldn’t spend more than two hours a day on this. even that became difficult. between research, posting, replying, and tracking campaigns, it regularly went over.

and sometimes it costs money too to participate on the platforms the campaigns are advertising... you need some liquidity usually and there's typically small gas fees for trading or swapping cypto, buying nfts, staking, etc. but there's incentive to do so in hopes of gaining rewards multipliers and ranking higher on the leaderboard that determines the size of your token airdrop.

after watching this ecosystem closely, one thing became very clear: airdrop farmers are not content creators. they’re operating under different incentives.

most infofi content is low-effort, high-volume ai output. whitepapers get pasted into chatgpt. tweets get reworded. threads get spun up at scale. platforms claim they’re cracking down on this, but the leaderboards suggest otherwise.

i’m not anti-ai, i use ai every day. i voice-to-text my ideas because i have a baby and limited time. i use ai to help structure and publish my own thoughts. that doesn’t make my content fake... it makes it sustainable.

the issue isn’t ai. it’s lazy ai.

most infofi posts aren’t interesting. they don’t teach you anything. they don’t feel human. they exist to meet quotas, not to communicate insight.

you can see it yourself. search any active wallchain campaign. it’s trending, but is it memorable? is it valuable? is it something you’d return to? usually not.

one thing i want to be clear about: infofi (also called attentionfi, socialfi) does appear to be effective at one specific thing. volume.

from the company side, the intended outcomes of these campaigns seem to be some mix of raising awareness about a token, increasing perceived momentum before launch, potentially building community, and ultimately supporting token price action.

whether all of those goals are actually being met is debatable. but one outcome is undeniable.

these campaigns generate huge amounts of content (usually on x) around a brand and its associated keywords.

when a project is running an infofi campaign, you can type its name, ticker, or core keywords into x and see hundreds (sometimes thousands) of posts created within hours. threads, replies, quotes, reposts. constant activity.

some of it is from real people.
some of it is from bots.
some of it is thoughtful.
a lot of it is not.

but the result is the same: the brand becomes highly visible. it trends. it looks active. it looks talked about.

and depending on your philosophy, you could argue that any attention is good attention. from that perspective, infofi works. it spreads names, narratives, and keywords at scale. it manufactures the appearance of relevance and momentum, at least in the short term.

the harder question is how valuable that really is.

does trending on x translate into long-term trust?
does high-volume posting translate into genuine users?
does awareness translate into investment in a token, a brand, or an ip?

maybe ...depending on the project, the timing, and the audience.

i don’t think it’s accurate to say that nothing comes out of infofi. something clearly does. but whether that something aligns with a project’s deeper goals (or a creator’s long-term well-being) is where things get murkier.

that’s why i think it’s important for startups running these campaigns to be honest with themselves about what they’re actually buying: visibility, not loyalty.

and for creators, especially those with established reputations or limited time, it’s worth seriously weighing the risks and benefits before participating.

for some people, there’s less to lose.
for others, there’s a lot.

after four months, my takeaway is simple: infofi is exhausting, time-intensive, and misaligned with how i want to create and live.

for people with nothing else competing for their time, or who genuinely enjoy the grind, it can make sense. i’m not judging that.

but for me (especially as someone intentionally moving toward a digital detox) it’s not worth the tradeoff.

the return on investment wasn’t there.
the content quality wasn’t there.
and the constant attention extraction isn’t something i want to build a life around.

infofi isn’t broken because it’s hard.

it’s broken because it mistakes volume for value, and attention for meaning.

and i’m done mining my mind for tokens that may never exist.