2026-01-07 04:25:43

I didn't pay much attention to this project at first. But recently, I saw that it launched a collaboration plan with a well-known AI project, and I suddenly found it quite interesting.

To put it simply, truly reliable creator incentive programs have never been afraid of time costs. This time, the activity period has been extended to over five months, and mindshare as a core evaluation metric. Most importantly—it's explicitly stated that there will be full manual review and anti-cheating mechanisms throughout.

What does this mean? The project team isn't just doing quick marketing gimmicks, but is seriously selecting creators with genuine depth of thought. A long cycle, strict standards, and transparent processes actually attract higher-quality participants. This approach can serve as a small model for the entire content ecosystem of the industry.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

15 Likes

Reward
15
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CountdownToBroke

· 01-07 17:27

Over five months? This cycle is indeed a bit intense, but to be fair, there's genuine sincerity. It feels like everyone is now aiming for mindshare; this term is getting popular really fast. Manual review combined with anti-cheating measures—this combination can truly filter out genuine players, making it more reliable than those false booms driven by weekly hype. A long-term cycle might actually be a signal, indicating that the project team isn't planning to just take a quick profit and run. If everyone adopts this approach, the ecosystem might really improve.

View OriginalReply0

ThreeHornBlasts

· 01-07 14:11

Hey, this set of logic is indeed interesting, much more reliable than those activities that end in a month.

View OriginalReply0

ChainSpy

· 01-07 05:05

Oh wow, I buy into this logic. Not fearing the test of time is truly meaningful. A 5-month cycle can really filter out those serious creators. Trash short-term projects simply can't afford to play this game. Manual review to prevent cheating—this approach is indeed rare in this circle. This approach can genuinely improve the ecosystem, much better than those blindly following the trend. Using ideological share as a core metric? Quite innovative, finally someone prioritizes quality. Instead of spending on marketing, it's better to spend time selecting people. The project team really seems to want to build for the long term.

View OriginalReply0

TokenomicsDetective

· 01-07 04:55

Damn, over five months and still manual review throughout? That takes a lot of confidence. Really not afraid to spend money.

View OriginalReply0

MetaverseVagabond

· 01-07 04:53

A 5-month cycle is really daring to play, I give full marks for this attitude. Manual review is the key here; finally, there's a project that doesn't rely on data falsification. Using mindshare as a metric? It shows that what they want isn't just fake fans or bots, but a bit of vision. But on the other hand, how many creators can really stick it out until the end? This kind of long-term strategy can indeed filter out genuine voices.

View OriginalReply0

DYORMaster

· 01-07 04:49

A 5-month cycle is indeed quite sincere, but the effectiveness of manual review depends on the specific execution. --- The mindshare metric is great; finally, someone is truly focusing on content quality rather than just traffic numbers. --- Instead of calling it a template, it's more about doing subtraction—keeping the low-quality stuff out. --- A long cycle plus anti-cheating mechanisms—that's the kind of project that should aim to stay. --- Why does it feel like every project now claims to be serious? The key is still how well they follow through. --- This approach really moved me; unlike those quick-week "harvesting" activities. --- How high are the costs for manual review? If they truly stick to this standard for five months, at least it shows a decent attitude. --- Making ideological share the core metric sounds pretty advanced; I'm curious how it's actually quantified. --- Finally seeing an incentive plan that doesn't rely on follower count or repost volume. --- The quality screening system—if truly implemented—deserves attention, after all, the content ecosystem really needs such disruptors.

View OriginalReply0

ETH_Maxi_Taxi

· 01-07 04:48

Five-month cycle? This guy really wants to play the long game, unlike those who just run after a quick profit. The manual review and anti-cheating system show that the team is genuinely working hard and not just making empty promises. Using mindshare as a core metric is interesting; it's much more reliable than the superficial focus on follower counts. But I still want to see what kind of quality creators can ultimately be attracted—there are plenty of projects that sound good but lack substance.

View OriginalReply0

DegenDreamer

· 01-07 04:42

Sounds pretty good, but can manual review really keep things in check? Probably just another round of internal competition. The mindshare metric is interesting, but I don’t know how it’s quantified, so it still feels a bit uncertain. A five-month long cycle is indeed rare; most just cut and run. Reliable projects are usually this unexciting, but only this way can they survive long. So is this time really different, or just the same old story? Let’s wait and see. With AI support, at least it’s not just empty talk; worth waiting to see what happens.

View OriginalReply0