Early in the morning, I saw a retweet from @ KaitoAI, which roughly covered the incentive allocation for @ AIWayfinder. The project will allocate 0.25% of the tokens specifically to qualified emerging Yappers who have a lifetime ownership of>100 Yappers, while the remaining portion will be distributed to all other Yappers. It mentioned "social recognition, social acceleration", and the previous retweet was "Community acceleration". The content of two consecutive tweets cannot help but reflect on the significance of Kaito for the project. one ️⃣ Emphasize the transformation of community members into core contributors to the project, and incentivize users to actively participate in development, promotion, and governance activities through token rewards, governance rights allocation, task rewards, and other means, rather than relying solely on team or capital promotion. two ️⃣ Through the active participation of early community members (such as content creation, liquidity provision, node operation, etc.), more users are attracted to join, forming a positive cycle of "contribution → reward → more people joining → ecological growth". three ️⃣ Community members can position themselves based on their own skills, for example, ICT is actually used to measure the quality of user content and social influence. Based on real-world interaction ratings and industry recognition, ICT creates value. ECT, on the other hand, is transformed into quantifiable economic value, with the core logic of contribution being mining. Both ICT and ECT have jointly built KAITO's attention economy flywheel. Users output content through social behavior ICT, while ECT converts it into measurable contribution values. Create data input for the project together. In addition to traditional yaps rewards, the project itself will also be incentivized through its own airdrops. Encourage the community to create content and determine contribution values based on Kaito's ranking. To concretize the value of Yaps, not only as a platform reward token but also as a governance power. The algorithm designed by @ Punk9277 is also quite interesting. More and more projects are voting through kaito connect, and the joint votes of users' yaps&Smart Followers, sKAITO from staking users, and Genesis NFT holders determine the future direction of the project. The core mechanism is to use Kaito Connect as a matching platform between KOLs and project parties, delegating the traditional VC/media led project exposure rights to the community. This mechanism not only helps Pre TGE projects such as Berachain and Monad gain exposure by being listed, but also creates scenarios for users to profit from research voting. Essentially, it is still a value matching between creators and project parties. Creators publish high-quality articles related to the project, and then quantify their influence in numerical form through yaps, ultimately potentially obtaining airdrops/collaborations from project parties. For the project team, based on Kaito's Smart Follower count and Yaps ranking, KOLs can be accurately selected for cooperation, reducing their marketing costs. The ultimate goal is to enhance the attention economy loop and reconstruct the creator economy model Namely: High quality content → Yaps points → Ranking → Project cooperation → Revenue feedback for creation At the same time, Kaito Connect is also the core carrier of Kaito ecological governance, with Yaps serving as both a voting governance certificate and an exchange medium for payment platform services. Enrich the practicality of tokens through scenarios. Build a content integration platform centered on user participation. This can clarify that the value of Pre TGE Community Leaderboard can be seen as a battle of attention before coin issuance. By exposing projects and preheating communities, and quantifying user contribution, real-time project popularity rankings are formed. Users can improve their ranking on the leaderboard by creating high-quality content for projects that have not yet been issued coins, in order to compete for airdrop qualifications. The platform uses Smart Followers and Yaps as core indicators, and uses social influence and quantified content attraction contribution as evaluation criteria. The users themselves are doing Yap to Earn, and many KOLs and users around them are "doing it for free" for the community, even forming a state of "content stacking" and "content aggregation". The purpose is to obtain more yaps points. By comparison, the value of Post TGE Community Leaderboard has become a redistribution of value after token generation. The project team needs to maintain market heat after the TGE project. Post TGE has become the reference standard for allocating marketing budgets. Even some projects bind the ranking of the leaderboard to the token economy model. Deepen on chain governance rights or pledge income markup through contribution value. The Post TGE ranking focuses more on content sustainability and guides the community to tilt towards deep content creation. Kaito has constructed a "traffic value" conversion loop through a two-stage ranking system In the PRO-TGE stage, retail investors and KOL were attracted to create momentum for the project, forming a foam of market expectations. The Post TGE stage converts the accumulated attention in the early stage into actual token liquidity or governance participation, thereby completing value accumulation. At present, the two-stage community ranking list is both an industry innovation experiment and a microcosm of industry contradictions. The changes in requirements at different stages of the project evolve into short-term heat driven by airdrops or the project's ability to capture long-term value. Relying entirely on algorithmic fairness and economic model sustainability. For users, it is necessary to have independent thinkers with their own "minds" to avoid becoming "data laborers" in content mining. For the project team, they need to balance the interests of short-term exposure and long-term ecological health. For platforms, it is important to ensure "fairness" as much as possible. Although fairness may not be the "absolute fairness" people imagine, it still needs to be "relatively fair".