Between empty lines and real learning: my experience writing in the @Injective campaign
I have been dedicating days, to be honest, weeks almost entirely to the Binance Creator Pad campaign: I publish, study, review technical documentation, and try to build articles that add value.
I do this not only to advance in the ranking but also because I have discovered that, in the process, I have learned much more than I expected: from advanced interoperability concepts to the modular ecosystem of Injective and its architecture based on Cosmos SDK.
With real learning, there is also something that bothers me. While reviewing the content of those at the top, in the top 100, I find articles that don’t even reach 20 lines, texts without cohesion, without a technical idea, without a minimal explanation of what Injective represents for Web3.
And although I am not bothered by the competition, on the contrary, I find it difficult to understand what type of algorithm prioritizes such superficial texts over the work of those of us who try to contribute substantial content.
$INJ is not just any memecoin. It is a blockchain designed for high-performance finance. It is a chain that allows building DEXs, perpetual markets, oracle infrastructures, and financial applications without gas fees. Talking about Injective requires, at least, a minimal technical understanding.
Perhaps my frustration does not come from the ranking but from how unfair it seems to invest hours in understanding concepts like Orderbook-level MEV protection, WASM smart contracts, or how the Injective bridge works, only to then see contentless publications.
Despite everything, I am still here. Because I have learned, because I am growing, and because I have been lucky enough to read and connect with people who do share deep knowledge, people who master this world and provide valuable insights.
Maybe the algorithm cannot measure effort, dedication, or learning. But every line I write elevates me higher personally and technically.
