Written by: Wu Says Blockchain
This episode's content comes from Web3 101. Former Chain News editor-in-chief Liu Feng, along with Wu Says editor Colin and Deputy Editor Jack from Blockchain Law Movement, discussed the challenges and dilemmas faced by traditional media and cryptocurrency media today. They also talked about how ordinary readers can obtain more authentic, accurate, and effective information in the chaotic information landscape of cryptocurrency. This dialogue was published in June 2025, and some information may be outdated.
The Start and Development of Wu Says
Liu Feng: Welcome to Web3 101. Today we have Colin Wu, the founder of Wu Says, with us. We want to discuss a topic: how can we discern and confirm information in today's cryptocurrency world, where information is very complex and chaotic? Of course, the topic may go far beyond this. Mr. Wu, could you briefly introduce yourself?
Colin: Hello everyone, I am Colin, the founder of Wu Says (WuBlockchain). Wu Says is now a cryptocurrency media and content platform that covers English, Chinese, and some other languages. At the end of 2019, I initially started a public account by myself to write some content, and later gradually recruited some colleagues to work together, developing into the current state.
Liu Feng: The reason we invited Mr. Wu to do this program is that I am often asked a question: how to quickly learn and obtain truly valuable information in the world of cryptocurrency and Web3? All three of us come from a media background, so we can only approach it from the media's perspective, hoping to inspire the audience. Another particularly important reason is that I believe Wu Says is one of the fastest-growing and most successful media outlets in the past few years. Here, "success" does not mean how much money it has made, but rather that it has gained widespread trust in the cryptocurrency field.
So, Mr. Wu, when was the official launch of the Twitter account for WuBlockchain (Wu Says English official account)?
Colin: I don't remember the exact date, but it was probably between 2021 and 2022.
Liu Feng: Assuming it was in 2022, it has been more than three years now. I checked this morning, and the account currently has over 530,000 followers. This number is crucial because Wu Says is primarily a Chinese team, but this account mainly publishes in English, and its follower count is approaching the level of top global cryptocurrency media. Of course, established media like CoinDesk, which has been operating for 12 years, currently has only about a million followers on Twitter.
In addition, Wu Says' English account is now one of the most influential blockchain media outlets. It not only publishes content entirely in English but, in my view, has also become a frequently cited source of information for many international media, important investors, and industry participants. So, the "success" I refer to is in terms of this kind of influence. Mr. Wu, could you share how you think the Wu Says account has grown rapidly and gained industry trust over the past few years? What factors do you believe contributed to people's attention and trust in you?
Colin: The growth of our English account has been quite "magical." As a Chinese team, many people want to create English platforms, whether it's media, content platforms, exchanges, or projects. However, very few have actually done it, especially content-driven platforms. Exchanges and projects can promote development through significant financial investment or other means, but our purely content-driven team relies mainly on the content itself.
There were several key factors in our initial growth.
The first was that many significant news events were happening in China at that time, possibly related to policy support, important meetings, and so on. We quickly wrote about these news stories. Our characteristic is that we publish very quickly, which relates to my background as a reporter in a news agency. Our style pursues speed and simplicity while ensuring accuracy as much as possible. This style created a fascinating cycle in the Western market at that time—many people believed that when our news was released, the price of cryptocurrencies would fluctuate.
In the cryptocurrency world, the influence of a media outlet or KOL often does not depend on whether it actually affects the market, but rather on whether people "believe" it will affect the market. This psychological expectation itself can trigger market reactions. So we became that kind of role, where many people felt our content might drive price fluctuations.
The second factor was somewhat coincidental. When we were just starting, CZ (Changpeng Zhao) already had significant influence, but he had not communicated with us in advance and frequently retweeted our English content. He even publicly stated that we were the only Chinese media he followed. Although we have always maintained neutrality and sometimes lost his follow due to negative news about Binance, only to regain it later due to positive coverage, these are not important. In the cold start phase, CZ's retweets indeed played a significant role in our growth.
However, I believe the core reason is still the first point. This is similar to the rise of some influential media in the past few years. For example, Chain News had a significant impact on VC coins in the early years, and many people invested after reading its reports. This includes familiar names in the current cycle, such as Equation News and Lookonchain.
Of course, Lookonchain is somewhat different, but their commonality lies in being perceived by the market as having content that could affect prices. Even earlier media like Jinse Finance and Coin World, during the ICO era, were more about hype-driven information. So I believe the main reasons for Wu Says' success are these two aspects.
Does Media Drive Cryptocurrency Prices: The Mechanism of Information Affecting the Market
Liu Feng: I actually think there are several questions in your introduction that we can explore next, as well as some particularly interesting phenomena. The first question is the relationship between media and cryptocurrency prices—does a media outlet that can drive price fluctuations necessarily mean it is a good media outlet? Although you mentioned that this phenomenon was a key factor in driving product growth during your cold start phase. Another point is one of your important readers—your significant audience, CZ. CZ refers to Changpeng Zhao, the founder of Binance, and everyone in the cryptocurrency circle is used to calling him that. He sometimes loves your reported content, but sometimes he doesn't, and he unfollows you at the drop of a hat. This raises another question: as a media or information platform, does the audience's preference affect our judgment and output of content?
I think Wu Says is a media outlet worthy of respect. Besides the large audience you mentioned—this is a sign of recognition—another point that impressed me is speed. You also mentioned this, and I know you require content to balance fairness and efficiency. Additionally, I believe your personality is particularly suited for media work: you have a critical eye for things while presenting content with a calm attitude.
In today's program, I particularly want to provide some friendly guidance for those listeners who are just starting to enter the cryptocurrency world. I also want to hear from you about how, as a media person, you find that exclusive, fast information when handling news. When you see a piece of information, how do you confirm its credibility? Because for all readers, fast, accurate, and credible news should be the most basic demand. This is actually also the fundamental skill of our work. Mr. Wu, please go ahead.
Colin: No problem. What Mr. Liu said indeed touches on the essence of news. The essence of news is to be both fast and accurate, but these two aspects often conflict with each other. In the cryptocurrency field, this contradiction is amplified even more. In some areas, such as the entertainment industry, accuracy may not be as important; while in traditional finance, speed may not be as critical. But in the cryptocurrency world, the contradiction between speed and accuracy becomes very sharp. Many investors make investment decisions based on the speed of your news, especially for short-term trading. If you publish incorrect information, the consequences can be quite embarrassing.
We see many examples of this. For instance, a few days ago, A published a piece of news about Memecoin, but it was later confirmed to have significant issues. First, A cited a very small source and did not conduct secondary verification; second, they didn't even specify the exact source. As a result, the news turned out to be false, and many KOLs were harmed, starting to criticize A for publishing fake news that caused losses.
A's response was also quite interesting: if we encountered such a situation, we would definitely sincerely apologize because the editor's income is not high, and they work hard. If they make a mistake occasionally, they hope everyone can understand. But their attitude was, when we reported the news correctly, you made money off it, and no one thanked us. Why do you come to criticize us when we make a small mistake? This argument seems to have some merit. This actually leads to another topic about paywalls and whether news should be charged for.
Returning to your earlier question, how do we usually confirm the accuracy of news? I think the first key is to realize that the contradiction between speed and accuracy is particularly sharp in the cryptocurrency world. We all hope to do better, and we also hope the community can be more tolerant of media, especially today when professional requirements are getting higher.
The second point is about how to judge the accuracy of information sources. I must say that cryptocurrency media does seem unprofessional in the eyes of traditional journalists. For example, traditional media has very basic reporting standards; an important exclusive piece of information should have at least three independent sources for cross-verification. Even if the standard is lowered, there should be at least two. But in the cryptocurrency world, many times, even these basic common sense are absent. People often see sources that are just rumors, and they can become formal news releases.
From the reader's perspective, how should one seek more accurate information? This question is even more complex. Because you have to first ask yourself: do you want "accurate" information or "fast" information? Especially in this cycle, Memecoins are very popular, and Memecoins are essentially not based on tangible value; they represent a kind of sentiment.
So for Memecoins, whether the information is accurate may not matter at all; what matters is "speed." This is also why KOLs are particularly popular now, because people do not expect their information to be accurate, but as long as they are fast, they might help you make money. Some KOLs even send out a message "buy now," then send another "sell quickly," and in that back-and-forth, someone might make money in that time, so their users feel they are useful.
But for us as media, we face a dilemma: should we report some vague news quickly, or should we take a bit longer to be more accurate? I don't have a completely clear answer myself. But for Wu Says, we have always firmly leaned towards accuracy; that is our characteristic. Of course, I won't criticize others for pursuing speed, as for them, another approach might be a survival path.
Liu Feng: I feel particularly unsuccessful; I actually wanted to "trick" you into giving everyone some particularly practical tips, such as how to obtain exclusive news—that requires making friends and getting to know those who truly understand the industry and have valuable insights; or how to verify a piece of information—that means you must know which information sources are reliable. You see, Bloomberg's news is definitely more trustworthy than "street corner news," right? I originally thought you could list ten or twenty trustworthy information sources, but you completely dodged the question and instead threw out a more complex issue.
In fact, we might discuss this question for an hour or even ten hours and still not clarify it. That is: can accurate information actually make money? This question is worth delving into.
Colin: Yes, I think what you just said makes a lot of sense. Perhaps my previous expression was a bit off, because the audience of Web3 101 might be broader, and they may not fully understand the details I just mentioned. The more basic techniques you mentioned are indeed correct, and we should tell everyone what the most fundamental judgment methods are.
Liu Feng: That's fine, I believe the audience is smart. The question you raised is actually a deeper one—are we reading media to find the truth, or to make money?
Colin: Yes, actually, the article you wrote five years ago articulated this very well. From my perspective, I feel there’s not much I can add.
The Controversy of Whether Media Can Help Users Make Money
Liu Feng: After listening to what Mr. Wu just said, I think we can further discuss a more complex issue: do we all come to the cryptocurrency world and Crypto to read news media to seek the truth, or to make money?
Colin: I think this varies from person to person. There are indeed significant differences among users, and everyone has a different definition of "making money." For example, some people hope to earn a million, ten million, or even a hundred million; while others just want to earn 100 USDT a day, or even 50 USDT. The demand differences among different groups are very large. For some more traditional professionals, their purpose in reading news may not be to make immediate profits, but for retail investors, they may very much hope to open positions based on the content you publish, or even to engage in some gambling-like contracts. It really depends on the composition of the audience.
Liu Feng: I accept your answer, and I agree. Let me ask this question more directly, Jack, you can answer too. All three of us come from a media background, so can we guarantee that the content we produce is meant to help readers make money? Personally, I must admit that I cannot do that. If everyone is here to make money by listening to this podcast, I’m afraid I have no wealth secrets to offer. I didn’t start Chain News because I thought I could definitely help others make money.
Colin: Right, this actually brings up a very different value perspective. Take "Equation News," for example; it once published a long tweet with a core point: "Every piece of news I publish is meant to help everyone make money." Furthermore, it stated that it would first make money from the news itself. Their mechanism might involve using bots to open positions in advance, which react very quickly, and then they publish the news. So if you can keep up with the news and buy early, you might also make money. Of course, they would make more money themselves. I wonder what Mr. Liu thinks of this value perspective.
Liu Feng: I agree with this product concept; I think if such a product can be created, I would support it. I think it represents a very idealized product form. However, I am more skeptical about the sustainability of such a product, and we can continue to discuss this. Personally, I won’t make a moral judgment on this value perspective, nor do I want to label it as "good" or "bad." After all, in a highly financialized industry, "making money" is indeed a universally recognized marker. But I question whether it is realistic to always make money. I would put a question mark on that.
Jack: When I entered the Crypto media space, I happened to catch a very unique era—at that time, various narratives like the metaverse, Web 3.0, NFTs, and DeFi were all the rage, and it was a phase that could attract many traditional investors. It was completely different from the chaotic periods of 2014, 2015, or 2017, 2018 ICOs, as well as today’s meme-driven phase. Back then, many people came to Crypto media because they found the concepts in this industry very novel.
Many emerging media outlets at that time had the task of introducing new concepts to meet the needs of understanding and investing. For example, if I wanted to invest in this field, what do I need to know? What data should I pay attention to? What kind of analytical logic should I learn? This period was more knowledge-oriented and concept-driven. But before the ICO era and after the meme era, the industry leaned more towards "information trading," especially the so-called "news trading" model after "Equation News."
I have a deep impression that during the ICO era, Wu Says was frequently cited by many overseas English media. Many pieces of information, whether about ICO projects or trading platforms, were considered capable of influencing market price fluctuations. At that time, the foundation of Crypto was still very weak, and now in the meme era, it seems that not much is left, just short-term PVP games or operations.
The value of news media at this stage leans more towards serving trading—on-chain data and market fluctuations have become the main content of news flashes. Especially like the Lookonchain mentioned by Mr. Wu earlier, or other Twitter accounts tracking on-chain addresses, their emergence has changed the entire content structure of Crypto media. From the content proportions of many media news flashes, it can also be seen that most reports are highly related to meme price fluctuations and changes in on-chain addresses.
Liu Feng: But from what I hear, you are both describing a phenomenon: what people like to do now is to help users make money by providing trading-related information. My question is—do you really believe that media can achieve this? Do you have confidence in the idea that "media can help readers make money"?
Jack: Of course not, unless you are a trader yourself (a P player). But if you are a media person, this actually contradicts the ethical principles of traditional media; essentially, it becomes "tipping."
The Role of Insights and Subjective Judgment in Investment Information
Liu Feng: So Colin, do you have confidence in answering this question? Can you create content that ensures everyone makes money?
Colin: Let me give two small examples. These may seem like minor details. For instance, when USDC faced a crisis due to Silicon Valley Bank, the market was very panicked, and many people began to sell USDC. At that time, I posted a comment on my Twitter, and my judgment was: because there is a very high degree of synergy between USDC and Coinbase, if USDC really has a problem, Coinbase will definitely step in, either by providing loans or directly acquiring it.
Later, a long time passed, and once when I was having dinner with a friend, he told me, "I decided not to sell my USDC because I saw your tweet, and it really saved me a lot of money." Of course, what I thought was, "You saved money, but you didn’t share any with me, haha." However, it was indeed later proven that Coinbase had prepared billions of dollars in loans to support USDC and had considered acquiring it.
Of course, that tweet was not a piece of news; it was just my personal judgment. Could you write it as a news article? Actually, you cannot. Because it is just a speculation, it could be right or wrong, with about 70-80% confidence.
Liu Feng: I would categorize this kind of content as "insight." It comes from your understanding and judgment of information and is a subjective interpretation. This kind of judgment often has a high accuracy rate, but essentially it also carries a probability of being wrong. Although your friend is grateful to you, from my perspective as a media person, your tweet essentially resembles an "investment suggestion," which does not belong to the strict definition of a "news product."
This is what I particularly want to emphasize: if we really analyze the nature of information, on one hand, it can be "facts," which are clearly verifiable black-and-white content, and we can categorize this type of information as factual. But information can also be "opinions" or "insights," which carry subjective colors and are not easy to verify. They may seem correct in hindsight, but they can also be wrong.
This kind of uncertain content occupies a place in today’s so-called "money-making effect" or "money-making opportunities." Some people can make money because they base their conclusions on facts and arrive at a relatively high probability of success, leading to a successful trade. But if we stand from the perspective of a media outlet that has a "fact-centric obligation," this kind of subjective judgment cannot directly lead to the conclusion of "whether it can make money."
If you provide investment conclusions with clear recommendations, that is more like what an investment advisor should do. At this point, we often see many media quoting reports from investment banks or research institutions, which provide asset valuations, etc. I think this kind of distinction is very clear.
Colin: Yes, I think your distinction is indisputable. This also goes back to the essence of news. If a piece of news is to be valid, it cannot be like a personal judgment that only requires 70%, 80%, or even 90% accuracy. A piece of news is best at 95% or even 100% accuracy. In other words, if you want to rely on publishing news to help everyone make money, it is very difficult.
Of course, as Jack just mentioned, for example, tracking some anomalies in Memecoins, or the model of quickly publishing exchange announcements like "Equation News," may be one of the few ways to achieve this. But as you mentioned earlier, Mr. Liu, this kind of "Equation News" model currently does not seem to have long-term sustainability. What I want to express is that if media tries to become a channel to help everyone make money, the difficulty is indeed very high.
Liu Feng: In fact, there are indeed some media that have helped users make money, right?
Colin: It’s not entirely like that; I think a more accurate statement is that users have a very strong desire to "make money through media."
Liu Feng: So I want to tell users that if you think any media or any piece of information can help you make money, that is somewhat naive. I may need to break this naivety because the reality is often much more complex. I want to share my views on the media model of "driving trading decisions through fast information or even on-chain data."
I believe that in certain specific cycles and moments, such strategies can indeed be effective. But what truly allows everyone to make money is not the information itself, but a kind of "investment strategy." For example, if you see a large amount of Bitcoin being deposited into exchanges, you can draw a hypothesis: these BTC may be preparing to be sold, which could lead to a short-term market decline.
This logic is simple; it actually reflects a trading strategy. Similarly, why have people often said that information from "Wind God Trading" is useful? Because for a long time, once certain coins are listed on major exchanges like Korean exchanges, Binance, or Coinbase, it can trigger price increases. This is because people base their assumptions on the idea that these exchanges can bring attention and liquidity, and in a market environment with poor liquidity, this effect is particularly pronounced. So this is also a kind of "short-term trading strategy."
Therefore, those information platforms that provide "signal factors" for such strategies seem to be able to help people make money. But I believe that behind this, it is the strategy that plays a role, not that the information itself has magic.
If we broaden our perspective and look at the global financial markets, especially those large hedge funds, they have various complex trading strategies, with countless variables and factors being monitored and adjusted. Even so, no one dares to say that a single factor can make money forever. So what I want to say is that if users are willing to use such information as part of their strategy, it is indeed possible to make money, which is a good thing. But one must continuously examine their trading logic. I do not believe that any successful hedge fund can completely avoid adjusting its strategy. What is useful today may not be useful tomorrow. I think this kind of judgment is worth recognizing.
Colin: I completely agree. Because in the cryptocurrency space, there are indeed many different types of people and trading strategies, and the number of people who actually engage in short-term trading is relatively small.
Reflexivity in the Cryptocurrency Market and Information-Driven Self-Actualization
Liu Feng: Right, I want to delve a bit deeper. At the end of last year, I picked up Soros's book "The Alchemy of Finance" again because I suddenly realized that this matter is particularly interesting. I had discussed with friends a long time ago that there is a very strong "reflexivity" issue in the cryptocurrency market. If you have read Soros's book, you will easily understand this concept.
The so-called "reflexivity" involves two very interesting concepts that Soros discusses: one is "fallibility," which he believes applies to almost all subjective opinions, even interpretations of phenomena and facts, which are inherently subjective and often incorrect. This fallibility is always present and unavoidable.
"Reflexivity" refers to a phenomenon where certain judgments we believe to be facts, due to widespread belief, actually drive their occurrence. This phenomenon is particularly evident in the cryptocurrency market, especially in price fluctuations. For example, when most people believe a certain trading strategy is effective, as soon as a "factor" supporting this strategy appears, everyone will unanimously think it will drive the price of the coin up or down. Thus, because everyone believes it, it truly affects the price—this forms a "self-fulfilling" process.
In the crypto market, this situation is very easy to occur. This market has several characteristics: assets often lack clear pricing standards, liquidity is relatively insufficient, and liquidity often determines price. Coupled with the extreme sensitivity of market participants to information, when a certain expectation is widely accepted and recognized, this "consensus" will turn into reality. In other words, Soros's logic is very applicable in the cryptocurrency market.
Of course, how to "teach" this logic to others is a more complex matter, and I won't elaborate on that here. But I hope to provide a little inspiration to truly smart listeners through this perspective, encouraging them to think more deeply about this issue. This also responds to the phenomenon that Mr. Wu mentioned earlier: why does a certain asset start to experience price fluctuations after you publish a piece of news? Why does this situation seem to repeat itself? Is it possible that this is a "self-fulfilling" process?
I think this is an open question, and I believe many of our listeners are experienced and willing to think, and they can further explore this issue. We are certainly not experts in this area, but we have observed a phenomenon: certain news products or data platforms do seem to bring opportunities for making money.
So is this phenomenon due to the inherent value of this information? Or more accurately, is it truly sustainable? Personally, I am skeptical about this "sustainability." Because I believe that many times, it may just be that certain effective trading strategies are at play during specific phases.
On the other hand, I also want to say that the reason this phenomenon may occur is precisely because there is a very strong "reflexivity" in the crypto market. If a thousand people rush into a scarce asset with low liquidity, such as a MEME token, its price can indeed be driven up dramatically. Then more people see the price soaring and follow suit, thus forming a stronger self-fulfilling cycle.
Therefore, the answer to this question is inherently complex, and this is part of the complexity of this world that we must learn to accept.
The Public Nature of Media and the Commercial Dilemma: Reasons Behind the Acquisition Wave
Colin: Mr. Liu, you must have noticed that many mainstream media in the crypto space, stemming from the topic we just discussed about "whether media helps users make money," are also facing a dual dilemma of "public nature" and "profitability." But in the end, it seems that mainstream media are not doing well. For example, CoinDesk was acquired by Bullish, and The Block was also acquired. Some media in the Chinese-speaking world have either been acquired or are seeking acquisition paths. Why has this become a trend? Do you find this somewhat sad?
Liu Feng: If I were to put it in a more diplomatic way, it would be "how to define the term 'not good'." In my view, "not good" can be understood on two levels: one is that they cannot survive at all, such as being unable to pay salaries; the other is that they are still alive but no longer have influence or dignity. However, I believe this is not just the current state of crypto media; it is a situation faced by all "traditional media" globally: declining and struggling.
However, if we look at it from another angle, what exactly is media? Do you think Douyin and Xiaohongshu are media? These new media forms are actually among the most profitable business models in the world. So the decline of traditional media is an irreversible fact, and there is no need to debate it further.
But I want to emphasize that I do not believe these "traditional media" have no value at all. They may not be particularly profitable, but I believe they are still among the most honorable professions in the world. You will find that some of the wealthiest individuals in the world, once they have made enough money, particularly enjoy acquiring reputable traditional media, such as Bezos and others. This indicates that media, to some extent, remains a "symbol of status" or "public influence."
Even if CoinDesk and The Block's business does not seem to be doing well now, they are still doing important and positive work. CoinDesk once triggered a chain reaction with a report on FTX, and recently conducted an in-depth investigation into Movement Labs, revealing many industry scandals.
Colin: Right, I think this also shows that when a media outlet has a relatively "benevolent" backer or acquirer, it can report more calmly and professionally.
Liu Feng: I am not sure if their backers are "benevolent," but I believe their professionalism is still intact. I cannot judge whether they will be able to maintain the last dignity of the newsroom in the future, but at least for now, CoinDesk's reporting standards can still compete with many traditional financial media.
Of course, many people may criticize them, saying they do not understand crypto or the industry, etc. I think these criticisms are not important. What matters more to me is that their starting point is not for traffic, not to make everyone money, but to genuinely convey some facts and truths they believe are important to both the industry and the outside world. I think that is the value of media.
So if someone believes, "This media outlet cannot help me make money, so it has no value and should not exist," I think that is the greatest tragedy.
Liu Feng: Then we can extend this topic further. Do you think these crypto media outlets are still trustworthy?
Colin: I will address this from several levels. From the perspective of Wu Says, we certainly hope to be a trustworthy media outlet. But merely having the desire is not enough; ultimately, it comes back to the initial question—can we achieve both speed and accuracy? This is a very difficult task. Moreover, you need to have a certain level of profitability to maintain a high-standard team. You cannot rely solely on requiring editors to meet standards; you also need to provide them with sufficient support.
As for the media in the entire crypto industry, I believe there has been overall progress. For example, some early media had relatively low credibility.
Liu Feng: Now they are basically no longer visible.
Colin: Right. In the last cycle, some new media attempted to enter, but most disappeared after just a month. Now, after the waves have washed away the sand, what remains are mostly some established media that have been around for many years. Whether in the English-speaking world or the Chinese-speaking world, the remaining few media outlets still uphold some basic values. I think overall they are relatively trustworthy.
Colin: But if we discuss more deeply, the standard of "trustworthiness" itself is actually complex for users. Everyone has a different understanding of "trustworthy"; some want to see information that can make money, while others want information to be fast enough. So this "trustworthiness" actually has multiple interpretations.
Liu Feng: Yes, the most popular saying is: "Trustworthiness is a spectrum," and everyone stands at different positions on that spectrum. We all live in our own "information cocoons."
The Intensifying Conflict Between Opinion Leaders and Media, and the Escalation of Information Warfare
Colin: Returning to this issue, I actually want to ask Mr. Liu about a phenomenon that confuses me. This era is indeed different from the past; media now finds itself on a more equal, even weaker platform compared to KOLs and some "powerful figures." In the past, media was strong and had the ability to scrutinize and challenge these individuals, but now these individuals have more followers and greater public opinion power.
I recently noticed a phenomenon, for example, The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg continuously reporting on the relationship between Binance and Trump or the Trump family projects. Binance, or CZ's strategy, is to neither respond nor deny but to attack the media itself. This operation is very reminiscent of Trump's style—directly accusing The Wall Street Journal of being paid off and smearing him, while avoiding discussion of some key information. This phenomenon is becoming increasingly common. You see Trump, Musk, and CZ; when they face unfavorable reports, their first reaction is often to stigmatize the media. I wonder what you think?
Liu Feng: I must say that this behavior is very undignified. It is the media's duty to raise questions; the party being questioned has the freedom to respond or refuse to answer, but should not treat it with attacks. We originally hoped to live in a dignified world, but it seems that this dignity is slowly fading away.
The current public discussion is no longer about discussing the issues themselves but has fallen into a state of mutual attacks and mudslinging, diverting the discussion from the core. I have indeed observed that traditional media have biases against the crypto industry; that is a fact. But at the same time, if we evaluate media and these public figures, such as Zhao Changpeng and Trump, on a "credibility spectrum"—setting aside emotions and positions, we can actually judge who is in which quadrant.
I have worked in corporate reputation management, and I know that the core of "reputation" is establishing credibility. But in this era, it seems that people do not care about "credibility" at all; they only care about "influence." But is influence really just traffic?
Colin: Right, my confusion lies here. It seems that people are not as concerned about the standard of "trustworthiness" anymore. If you look at many MEME coin KOLs, they may have previously promoted scams, made calls, or even cut retail investors, but many people still trust them now, even very much, because some have indeed made money through them.
Liu Feng: Yes, we must accept this reality: the world now has very strong contradictions and conflicts, mutual understanding is becoming increasingly difficult, and many former value consensuses are collapsing. Each group is building its own "trust system," and what you say is "trustworthy" has become difficult to have a unified standard. For example, Trump’s supporters genuinely believe every word he says, and they are willing to charge into battle for him.
I can understand this phenomenon, but I also wonder: is this really a normal world? I still hope we can return to common sense, to a world where we can discuss and seek trust. Although we often talk about "trustless" in the crypto world, it is precisely because there is no mechanized trust that the reputations of individuals or institutions that can be established become even more important. This is also a form of scarce value.
Colin: This is also related to the current information recommendation mechanism, right? For example, Twitter particularly encourages short, fast, and direct forms of expression.
Liu Feng: I believe the recommendation mechanism is just a tool; the real issue lies in the reward mechanism behind it. In human society, why are we willing to listen to some people? One possibility is that they have a loud voice, and another is that they have prestige and are trustworthy.
In traditional society, we are educated to be "credible people" because this allows us to be trusted by others and gain opportunities—this is a positive incentive. But in today's online world, everything has been monetized and turned into traffic, especially on social platforms, where monetizing traffic has become the most direct method.
This is why so many self-media and content creators are willing to distort facts and create hype to attract attention. It’s not that the recommendation mechanism is wrong; rather, it is the recommendation mechanism that drives traffic, and traffic brings revenue. This entire mechanism has changed the original social order that was centered around "reputation." Now, reputation is worthless, while traffic is valuable. So I think the problem does not lie with the tool itself, but with the "incentive structure" we have set for this tool. That should be the logic.
The Impact of Social Media Monetization on Content Quality and How to Identify Trustworthy Information
Colin: I think there are some interesting phenomena now, for example, have you seen the recently popular "Kaito"? It ranks KOLs and has even launched lists for the Chinese and Korean regions. This ranking makes the monetization of traffic more blatant, as we can see KOLs displaying their rankings daily, which big accounts have followed or retweeted them, and how many points the system has added. It directly digitizes and publicizes the monetization of traffic, turning it into a very strong "traffic baton."
Liu Feng: Hmm, I haven't looked into Kaito's ranking algorithm, but I think this point is crucial. Different algorithms have their own factors; whoever can master these factors can influence the results—this is similar to the logic of Google SEO back in the day. We used to see some junk websites or gambling sites that did SEO very well, ranking high, but when you clicked in, it was not the content you wanted at all. This is a game between humans and machines. If Kaito makes its algorithm public, it will inevitably be optimized and manipulated; if it doesn't, it becomes a black box operation, making it difficult to assess the value of the rankings.
Especially if, as you said, posting ads can influence rankings, then the problem becomes significant. If a person ranks high simply because they post more ads, does that mean everyone likes their content? I don't think readers come to "appreciate ads."
Colin: So this has also attracted a lot of criticism; many people say Kaito has made Twitter's information flow "dirty," filled with advertising tweets.
Liu Feng: My view on this criticism is—if you feel the information flow is polluted, then you need to actively purify your own information flow. Everyone has the responsibility to choose what they want to pay attention to and what to filter out. If everyone can self-discipline and clean up their information flow, this model will naturally be abandoned. We cannot completely shift the responsibility to the platform or the algorithm.
Colin: Reality is not that extreme. Many KOLs actually have mixed content, with 70% being valuable information and 30% being ads. Many users say they may not like that 30% of ads, but they are unwilling to mute the entire account for that portion of content.
Liu Feng: This is the truly complex part. The information world has never been black and white. Even the sources of content we trust may have "dirty data"; in the future, we will increasingly rely on AI to obtain structured data, but the algorithms behind these systems may also be manipulated.
What I worry about is that future information pollution will not be the chaotic situation we see today, but something more insidious—where true and false information deeply intertwine and become difficult to distinguish, directly affecting our judgment, knowledge systems, and decision-making abilities. But precisely because of this, by that time, "trustworthy people" and "trustworthy information nodes" will become scarcer and more important. At that point, we may reevaluate the value of "reputation."
Colin: I think we can return to a very core question you raised at the beginning—many readers of Web3 101 are not long-term participants in the crypto space, so in this case, how can they find more reliable information sources? I have also reflected on this. In fact, your article from a few years ago is already quite classic; everyone can look it up and read it.
In 2020, Liu Feng shared the article.
From my own perspective, I have a few suggestions:
First, always maintain a high degree of skepticism. Let's not talk about making money for now; let's just discuss how to judge whether information is reliable. Especially with some short, extreme information, the more extreme it is, the more we need to be skeptical.
Second, once you have doubts, you need to verify the source of the information. Two aspects have changed significantly in recent years: the development of AI and the greatly increased influence of Twitter and KOLs.
Now, there are several dimensions to check information. For example, you can use AI to assist in judgment—not to say you should completely trust it, but at least as a reference tool. Additionally, you can search on Twitter to see if this news has been retweeted or commented on by some top KOLs.
Regarding KOLs, although many people have a negative view of this term, I think it is important to differentiate. Tools like Kaito that rank KOLs actually use an AI-based relationship network algorithm to establish their "top lists"—that is, the method of "who follows whom, who retweets whom." This logic is quite scientific.
Another simple tip: for example, if you see an account posting news that you think is worth paying attention to, you can click into their profile. Twitter has a feature that shows how many of the people you follow also follow this account. If none of the accounts you trust follow this person, then they are likely not a trustworthy source of information. If many of the people you follow do follow them, then their credibility can be given a boost.
Of course, these methods are just auxiliary; in this age of information overload, judging the "truthfulness of information" requires a more complex and comprehensive way of thinking, rather than a simple black-and-white approach.
So I will summarize a few points:
If you are someone who pursues "truthfulness" and "trustworthiness" (in fact, many people do not have this pursuit), you must cultivate a strong sense of skepticism and critical thinking. For example, in our Wu Says Telegram group, there is a pinned group rule: assume that all messages you see on Telegram are scams, and then gradually filter out those that are not scams. This mindset is actually very suitable for all information channels.
You can flexibly use AI tools, social graph analysis tools, and data products like Kaito to build your own information verification network and form a more efficient recognition mechanism.
Liu Feng: Thank you very much for your summary, haha. I think you are spot on. In fact, many of the information sources and channels I used to recommend have now stopped updating, which is a tragedy of the crypto space: once everyone makes money, no one takes content creation seriously anymore.
The Decline of Traditional Information Sources and the New Value of Newsletters and Podcasts
Liu Feng: I used to particularly enjoy some newsletters and spent a lot of time on them. Newsletters may not be very popular in the Chinese-speaking world, but they are a very mainstream and highly professional information product in the English-speaking world. Good newsletter authors often have a broad ability to gather information and can carefully curate important information, which is highly valuable. Although Twitter now supports long-form content, most of the content still serves traffic.
In contrast, I now prefer English podcasts; many truly in-depth contents actually appear in podcasts. I feel that current long articles are not as good as AI-generated content; many long articles do not deserve their length and can be misleading due to scary charts and logic. In comparison, the content conveyed through real language organization is more reliable.
As for social graph analysis tools, I used to use a particularly great product developed by a European developer, which judged which accounts were more influential based on Twitter's follow, retweet, and like behaviors, and it was far more effective than the currently common Kaito-like products. However, due to Twitter changing its API policy, this project ultimately failed. Most of the similar tools that emerged later distorted information due to the introduction of incentive mechanisms, which is unfortunate. Therefore, I manage my information flow very cautiously, not following accounts casually, to maintain information quality.
Colin Wu: Our Wu Says account never follows others due to advertising partnerships; we are very strict about this. My personal account sometimes actively follows some accounts with few followers but deep content to help them with a cold start, even retweeting recommendations. This behavior can actually greatly help their growth.
Liu Feng: The truly valuable accounts often have low follower counts, perhaps only a couple of thousand followers, but their content is very valuable. Many KOLs with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers are actually more deserving of caution. Finding these small but high-quality information sources is crucial, especially in the crypto field; you cannot always consume what others feed you, but must learn to discern information yourself.
For example, when we first started Chain News in 2018, we hired many interns, and one task was to have them join as many crypto-related WeChat groups as possible within a week. One particularly outgoing girl joined 200 groups, only to find they were all pyramid scheme groups. Other interns joined at most 10 groups, and the quality was also poor. This shows that if you cannot find a good entry point, it is really difficult to enter the crypto world. Therefore, we have always emphasized internal mentorship within the team, adding newcomers to groups we consider valuable, telling them who is who, and who is trustworthy, thus helping them quickly establish a trust network.
Colin Wu: I completely agree with your view. I have also joined some private groups to learn information; although I cannot participate in short-term trading professionally, I do feel that the information quality in core groups is far superior to that of public channels. The structure of WeChat groups also aligns with the flattened community characteristics of crypto.
Liu Feng: Yes, the cryptocurrency world is flat and open; anyone has the opportunity to voice their opinions, and many insightful opinion leaders have grown from being unknown. As long as you can find these people and recognize the value of their content, the charm of crypto will be revealed. Of course, you also need to remain vigilant to avoid being deceived.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
