An open letter from the author of the Ukrainian Square community to the CreatorPad team @Binance Square Official
I am an author from Ukraine who writes for CreatorPad, constantly communicating with other Ukrainian authors, so I understand the general sentiments of our community. We have invested a lot of time, effort, and genuine desire to create quality content into this platform. We believed and still believe in the mission of Binance Square: educating the crypto community, promoting quality projects, and forming a culture of responsible information approach in Web3.
That is why this letter is not a complaint or an ultimatum. It is a conversation between people who care.
After almost half a year of practical work with the updated CreatorPad 2.0, we have accumulated specific observations. Not theories, not assumptions - real experience backed by examples. We are talking about systemic problems that, if not addressed, will gradually turn CreatorPad from a platform for quality content into a competition to bypass algorithms.
Problem 1. Red Packets in campaigns - an open wound that everyone sees, but no one treats.
Despite all official prohibitions, the practice of using Red Packets for artificially inflating views and comments under CreatorPad campaign posts not only persists but is growing. Authors who violate this rule feel no consequences and continue to lead the leaderboard.
But now this problem has been compounded by the hyperboost from Binance, when the exchange itself unwittingly created the perfect infrastructure for these abuses. With the activation of personal chats on the platform, closed communities have appeared where chat owners form their own armies of 'bounty hunters': every day, subscribers receive instructions - to go to a specific post, leave a specific comment - and instantly receive rewards for it through Red Packet. Everything happens within the Binance ecosystem, quickly and without traces.
Previously, such schemes existed only in external messengers. Now this mechanism works directly within the platform - with speed and convenience that external groups could not provide.
Specific proposal: Introduce a mandatory unique hashtag for all publications within CreatorPad campaigns - for example, #ICreateHonestly - and programmatically block the possibility of adding Red Packets to any content containing this hashtag. Technically, this is not difficult. The effect is immediate.
Problem 2. The Misconduct Report form does not work - and this destroys trust.
One of the main innovations of CreatorPad 2.0 is the Misconduct Report Form. It was clearly stated in official announcements:
'We will carefully review each message and respond via Square Assistant within 7 days.'
The reality turned out to be different. None of the authors in our community who sent messages through this form received confirmation that their appeal was considered. Moreover, the violators we reported continued to gain points and advance in the ranking - without any consequences.
Only direct escalation through our curators from @Binance CIS - public raising of the issue in local UA and CIS author groups helped shift the situation from its place and led to the disqualification of some violators. But it shouldn't be this way. A working channel for reporting abuse is not an option; it's a basic requirement for any competitive platform.
If the form does not work - remove it or fix it. An unfulfilled promise is worse than its absence.
Problem 3. The algorithm rewards fiction and punishes professionalism.
CreatorPad 2.0 announced three criteria for evaluating publications:
Creativity,
Professionalism,
Relevance.
Sounds nice. But in practice, the algorithm's behavior tells a different story.
Among the authors who consistently receive the highest scores are those whose posts can only be characterized as... lyrical essays. Publications like 'If blockchain were a huge tree, I would lie in its shade and think about the future of DeFi...' are a completely real type of content that the algorithm evaluates very highly. The practical value for the reader is zero. Compliance with the campaign's Talking Points is absent.
At the same time, authors who invest real effort into researching the technical details of the project, verify information from official sources, structure the text for the reader's convenience (subheadings, lists, logical structure), and check their text for grammatical errors receive significantly lower scores. And this is not an isolated case; it is a consistent pattern.
Question to the CreatorPad team: why do you need authors who write quality and honestly if the algorithm systematically demotivates them?
Problem 4. AI hallucinations in content - a reputational risk for partners.
Most authors use AI tools to prepare material. This is normal, and CreatorPad allows it. But there is a significant difference between an author who uses AI as an assistant and an author who publishes raw AI output without any verification.
The problem is that large language models have limitations on data relevance (usually - May 2025). This means they are not aware of the latest updates to protocols, new products, and technological changes in projects. Authors who do not verify this information publish material that contradicts the official whitepapers. And the algorithm does not respond to this.
For Binance Square partners - projects that pay to promote their ideas - this is a direct reputational loss. Content that distorts the essence of their product does not just fail to help: it harms.
Problem 5. Partner brand book - terra incognita for the platform.
While reviewing content within the CreatorPad campaigns, we rarely encounter publications that meet the visual standards of partner projects. The vast majority of illustrations are AI-generated images where the project logo is depicted in arbitrary interpretations. Official colors, fonts, and branding are completely ignored.
For example: one of the latest projects, @MidnightNetwork provided publicly all the necessary graphic materials, fonts, and brand book. It takes 5 minutes to find and download them. But among the hundreds of publications from this and other campaigns that we observed, the correct logo was used by an absolute minority of authors.
If CreatorPad positions itself as the main platform for promoting crypto projects, then the issue of correctly representing partner identity cannot be optional. It is a basic requirement for any agency or media platform that takes on the promotion of brands.
What we propose
We understand that CreatorPad is a complex system that continues to evolve. We do not demand immediate changes and do not threaten to leave. We ask for one thing: to be heard.
Specifically - here is what we believe will genuinely improve the platform:
1. Make the assessment transparent.
Show authors how many points they received for each of the three criteria separately:
Creativity - X points,
Professionalism - Y points,
Relevance - Z points.
This removes 80% of questions and gives authors the opportunity to genuinely improve.
2. Establish the Misconduct Report.
Either establish a real SLA with confirmation of receipt of the appeal, or replace the form with a more effective mechanism. Silence in response to reports of violations is not a neutral position; it is a signal that violations are acceptable.
3. Rebalance the algorithm.
Quality, accuracy, and educational value of content should weigh at least as much as 'creativity'. @Binance Square Official - this is not a platform for essays; it is a tool for educating the crypto community. The algorithm should reflect this.
4. Introduce basic compliance checks with the brand book.
At least a simple checklist: does the author use the official logo? This can be done as a non-mandatory recommendation at the start that will become the norm over time.
5. Block Red Packets for CreatorPad campaigns.
Hashtag #ICreateHonestly + software restriction - a technically simple and effective measure.
Instead of a conclusion
I write this letter not because we are poorly off. I write because we care.
CreatorPad has real potential to become a benchmark platform for quality crypto education. But this potential is only realized when the platform listens to those who work on it - and acts.
We are ready for dialogue.
Ukrainian community of Binance Square authors