Kaito's crypto verification tackles AI content flood: onchain IDs, reputation gating, follower net-worth checks, caps & slashing to curb bot content now.
TLDR: - AI makes the cost of content near-zero, as we're seeing across all major social media platforms - with bot-generated content a widespread issue outside of X too - Movement away from KOL back-door deals, to a more inclusive model for wide-spread creators leads - This requires better verification of real people, and genuine creators - crypto is the solution - Kaito has the strictest algo, and we've implemented various methods of cutting out slop - replies have long not even counted, reputation gated, slashing, weekly cap etc - Next step, as we've started already, is onchain verifications and minimum reputation to participate - Follower net-worth verification is one of the implementations coming to better cut out slop - Requires constant iterations and improvements over time, which Kaito is always focused on
Real-time analysis of public opinion and engagement
What the community is saying — both sides
Replies demand strict rules and enforcement so campaigns actually deliver promised rewards — users want transparent, black‑and‑white reward rules and penalties for projects that shortchange creators.
Onchain verification and reputation gating are widely seen as the best defense against bots and AI slop, with calls for follower net‑worth checks, zk proofs, tiny stakes and slashing to preserve signal.
Many ask for mechanisms that shield creators when projects ghost or underpay, and for projects to be vetted and rated before they run campaigns.
There’s anxiety that minimum reputation or net‑worth thresholds could exclude newcomers; users want growth pathways so rising creators aren’t permanently sidelined.
Repeated requests for clearer campaign rules, fixed leaderboard rewards before launch, and more regular platform updates to reduce confusion and drama.
Plenty of supporters applaud the direction and iterative updates, but many stress that execution and consistent enforcement will determine success.
Suggestions include per‑user leaderboard caps, project reputation verification, KYC‑adjacent privacy options, and openness to third‑party integrations or collaboration to improve filtering.
Many replies blast projects for changing reward rules last minute, paying “peanuts,” dumping tokens and leaving creators unpaid or with vested crumbs — people say this damage to creators is the platform’s biggest problem.
Commenters accuse Kaito of obsessing over AI, reputation filters and creator slashing, yet failing to enforce promises or vet projects — that imbalance is framed as hypocrisy and a core grievance.
Users claim the new rules and reputation gating let big-money or coordinated accounts dominate leaderboards, making it nearly impossible for small creators to earn yaps or break through.
Repeated calls for formal project verification, explicit reward timelines and stronger protections for creators — many urge the team to publish policies and policing standards that actually protect users.
Replies mock the announcement as AI-generated while also admitting AI can’t be fully stopped; the conversation is full of sarcasm about using AI to police AI and about low-value airdrops.
A steady stream of warnings — creators threatening to leave, claims Kaito is “losing relevance,” and predictions that continued neglect of creator harms will harm the platform’s future.
Between the outrage there are memes, sarcastic quips, a few practical references (e.g., Arbitrum distribution dates) and requests to hire community advisors to fix things.
fix InfoFi or face fallout: The tenor ends with a stark call — community members want concrete action (policy fixes, project accountability) or they’ll stop creating and stop trusting the platform.
Most popular replies, ranked by engagement
. Please also focus on: >better comms >strict rules for projects >black and white rewards rules >better ops for Kaito platform ( not updated regularly) If you only increase the rules for the creators but you keep the same NO accountability rule for projects, not looking good for 202
You missed the part where I get free money
We are also rolling out an update where Wale is given free money
Unrelated, Arbitrum do distribute rewards on 11th This time no news kek
I think there also needs to be a strong focus on project selection. - transparent rewards preferably providing value equivalent to $. - protecting creators from cases where projects fail to deliver on their commitments.
hey, @KaitoAI! If you need someone who can effectively filter users by Onchain Score, we would be happy to collaborate. We already have a ready-made system that takes into account user behavior in more than 80 blockchains.