---- overnight, InfoFi was 'pulled out' on X
Late at night on January 15, many people still hadn't reacted, and InfoFi had already ended.
It wasn't the token crash that happened first, but X directly cut off the API — all applications that allowed 'tweet to mine' and 'reply to earn points' had their permissions wiped out in one fell swoop. There were no account bans, no announcement previews, just one sentence:
No rewards allowed for users posting.
This is equivalent to directly cutting off InfoFi's lifeline.
⸻
X's attitude is very clear: no money, and no content
X Product Manager Nikita Bier said very bluntly:
InfoFi is the core reason for the proliferation of AI junk content and ineffective interactions on the platform.
The more critical point is a sentence that many people overlook:
These applications have already paid millions of dollars for enterprise-level APIs, but we do not want them.
What does this indicate?
It's not about money, but the quality of content has already threatened the platform itself.
In X's view, even if they earn a little less from API revenue, it's still more cost-effective than continuing to be flooded with 'gm,' 'nice project,' 'LFG.'
To put it bluntly:
InfoFi was not taken down by regulation, but by product managers.
⸻
The mouth-pulling model is essentially anti-content.
InfoFi's initial vision was actually not bad:
Incentivize quality creators with tokens, use market mechanisms to filter information value.
But reality quickly turned sour.
When 'reply count' directly equals 'revenue weight,' the result can only be one:
• It's not better content
• But rather more, faster, and more perfunctory content
Every day there are hundreds of replies, exhausting all influence on meaningless interactions.
When you really want to express opinions, analyses, or project updates, the timeline is no longer distributed.
This is the chronic suicide of the content ecosystem.
Looking back at Nikita's tweet that was mocked and countered by GM, it actually hit the core of the problem.
⸻
Project transformation is not a spur-of-the-moment decision.
After the policy was implemented, projects like Kaito and Cookie quickly shifted to 'shut down incentives, upgrade products,' which is not surprising.
What really sparked controversy is:
Many teams clearly knew the trend in advance.
Transfers, unlocks, and staking releases all occur around policy changes.
This does not necessarily mean malice, but at least indicates—
Internally at InfoFi, they had long been aware of whether this path could be navigated.
When a model heavily relies on a single Web2 platform, its life and death are never in its own hands.
⸻
This is not InfoFi's failure, but the failure of the 'parasitic model.'
Many people interpret this incident as 'X banning crypto,' but that's not accurate.
X is not against crypto, nor against incentives,
It opposes: making noise with money.
The real problem is:
• Traffic does not belong to you
• Distribution rules are not controlled by you
• Incentives directly affect behavior, not value
Such a model will eventually be cleaned up on any centralized platform.
⸻
Saying goodbye to mouth-pulling might be a good thing for CT.
For ordinary crypto players, this cleanup might actually be a positive.
The timeline will be cleaner,
Content with real information is easier to see,
The game of 'whoever posts frequently makes money' is over.
Of course, this does not mean that SocialFi has no future.
But the future is certainly not:
• Reward posting
• Reward replies
• Reward emojis
But rather, it is about solving a more difficult problem:
How value is truly settled in social interactions, rather than being brushed out.
⸻
Conclusion
The exit of InfoFi is not the end, but a reality reminder:
In the crypto world,
All models relying on 'riding the platform' will eventually be liquidated by the platform.
When shortcuts are blocked, what remains is the truly valuable stuff.