On February 14, 2026, the X platform was exposed for planning to update its API policy, restricting applications that create and operate fee pools without explicit user consent, bringing the old controversy around "claim your fees" back to the forefront of the Solana ecosystem. Recently, some applications in the Solana ecosystem have created fee pools en masse through X's API, enticing users to click on "claim your fees," leading to complaints about damaged trust and rampant spam. As Nikita Bier, the head of X products and also an advisor to Solana, publicly criticized such designs as "extremely dishonest," a game regarding how much governance power the platform should retain and how much innovation space developers can keep is rapidly escalating in X's "half Web2, half Web3" mixed scene.
From "claim your fees" inducement to trust reconstruction
● The operation mode of inducement fee pools: In the Solana ecosystem, some projects automatically create so-called "fee pools" for users by connecting to X's API, then use phrases like "claim your fees" or "you have unclaimed earnings" to attract users to click. This process is often packaged as a simple welfare collection or cashback action, but behind it are complex on-chain calls and permission grants, and many users are unaware that they are actually participating in a fee extraction or revenue redistribution mechanism.
● The specific path of eroded trust: When the authorization process is hidden behind friendly copy and one-click interaction, users authorize funds or permissions without fully understanding the terms, contract logic, and potential risks. Such designs with extremely asymmetric information may temporarily increase conversion rates, but in the long run, they significantly weaken users' overall trust in the Solana ecosystem and X platform, causing "on-chain innovation" to become alienated into "skin-swapping inducement" in the eyes of many ordinary users.
● Value judgment from within X: Recently, Nikita Bier publicly stated that he views junk information and abuse related to "claim your fees" as "extremely dishonest practices," naming their damage to user experience and ecological reputation. This stance not only represents X's product line's risk assessment of such designs but also reflects that the platform is beginning to consider "user genuine understanding and consent" as a new bottom line when facing Solana ecosystem disputes, no longer just looking at superficial compliance ticks and whether it is technically feasible.
X tightens API controls: What boundaries does the platform want to maintain?
● Direction and motivation for policy adjustments: According to reports from several crypto media on February 14, X intends to update its API policy to explicitly prevent applications from accessing it that create and manipulate fee pools without user consent. The essence of this move is to tighten control over high-risk automated behaviors while maintaining an open platform image, preventing "shearing platform users' wool" strategies from being copied and disseminated en masse through the API.
● Anti-spam rather than a one-size-fits-all approach: According to a single official source, X emphasized in internal wording that it would "strengthen detection of automated behaviors and spam" to reduce systemic risks from spam content and abuse. This means that the platform is currently targeting specific behavioral patterns—such as bulk creation of fee pools and repeatedly pushing inducement messages for "claim your fees"—rather than labeling the entire Solana or on-chain applications negatively; the policy tone is closer to precise targeting rather than harsh bans.
● The single suggested source for official APIs: In the same context, X was pointed out as suggesting developers prioritize using the official API to access related features. However, currently, the public information on this is sourced from a single point, lacking broader documentation or announcements as evidence, so its actual constraints, compliance requirements, and review timing still have uncertain space, and developers need to leave room for interpretation rather than viewing it as a clearly stated mandatory rule.
● The platform's considerations for balancing safety and branding: From X's perspective, allowing junk behaviors related to "claim your fees" to flourish will lead users to attribute negative experiences directly to the platform itself, thereby damaging brand credibility and advertising commercialization prospects. This tightening of the API is both an enhancement of the platform's security and anti-spam system and a declaration to the outside that "we do not condone dishonest designs." In the current intertwining narratives of Web2 and Web3, X clearly does not want to be seen as a facilitator of opaque operations and gray incentives.
The gap between Web2 authorization pop-ups and Web3 signatures
● "One click to agree" in the Web2 world: In traditional Web2 products, the user authorization path is typically completed through terms of service, privacy policies, and one-off pop-ups, logically leaning more towards a binary choice of "agree or close." Although a lot of lengthy texts and legal terms are buried within, for most users, the authorization experience is simplified to an overall trust in the brand and platform, "I trust this app, so I'm willing to click confirm."
● The complexity and atomization of Web3 authorization: In contrast, Web3 applications rely on on-chain signatures, smart contract calls, and permission delegation mechanisms, providing finer granularity in authorization, where each operation may correspond to different contract functions and asset flows. Theoretically, this offers more precise control and traceability, but when specific products are implemented, if there is a lack of clear front-end copy, interaction guidance, and risk warnings, it becomes hard for users to truly understand in a few seconds what permissions they are granting on which assets and contracts.
● Understanding gaps in mixed scenarios: Platforms like X are essentially a "half Web2 half Web3" hybrid form—users are still browsing content and clicking links through familiar social interfaces, yet are unknowingly guided to on-chain signatures and fee pool authorizations. When buttons like "claim your fees" appear on timelines, most users intuitively understand them as "claiming red envelopes" or "airdrop benefits," with almost no one naturally linking to the complex fee pool structure behind it, creating a disparity that exacerbates the current controversy.
● User authorization boundaries have yet to be clarified: Ultimately, the essence of the current dispute is: under this new hybrid paradigm, what standards should user authorization be recognized as "valid consent"? There is a lack of mature consensus among the platform, developers, and users on risk allocation and responsibility division. X's attempt to tighten the API is a preliminary delineation of a minimum boundary of "no open abuse of inducement" in the absence of complete rules, while future more detailed authorization models and contract readability standards await exploration by the entire industry.
The Solana ecosystem misread: How emotions反噬 facts
● Public opinion amplifies "API adjustment" into "banning Solana": In the Chinese crypto community, after the news of X intending to update its API policy emerged, it was quickly interpreted by some commentators as a signal that "X wants to completely ban Solana-related applications," with various screenshots and second-hand interpretations rapidly circulating in group chats and social platforms. Compared to the original statement which leaned more towards behavioral regulation, this kind of secondary processing often directly pointed the finger at "the Solana ecosystem being collectively targeted."
● Information void amplifies emotional fluctuations: Among the known current information, there is no publicly available specific list of affected applications, nor is there a clear effective timetable and execution schedule explained. This factual void leaves a huge imaginative space for emotional narratives—some expect the worst-case ban scenario, while others choose to completely ignore the risks. Readers who overlook this information gap may easily overreact based on unverified rumors.
● The anxiety effect of old news overlapping with new disputes: The reason for the collective anxiety in the Solana community over this API turmoil is largely due to its overlap with previous negative news regarding fee pool abuse—ranging from on-chain inducement to authorization, to X platform tightening access, forming a continuous storyline of "the ecosystem being hit" on the narrative level. This emotional chain reaction not only blurs the real boundaries of the problem but may also mislead developers and users regarding the overall safety of the Solana ecosystem.
Developers' response challenge: Rewrite authorization and traffic paths
● The realistic pressure of fee pool applications: For developers building product logic around fee pools, this round of policy expectations is almost equivalent to an exam of "rewriting interaction and authorization design." The originally relied path of having X automatically create fee pools and guiding users to participate through simple buttons will likely face stricter behavior recognition and risk control thresholds; if not adjusted in time, it runs the risk of being seen as spam behavior, leading to restrictions or blocks.
● Self-restraint route within the X ecosystem: If opting to continue deepening in the X ecosystem, developers need to enhance transparency and constraining aspects on multiple dimensions, such as providing more straightforward prompt copy to explain the fee pool mechanism and fund flows, offering more granular permission control options, enabling users to choose the depth of participation rather than "one-click full access." Meanwhile, efforts should be made to minimize bulk, mechanical automated behaviors, introducing throttling mechanisms based on interaction frequency and user willingness to lower the probability of being misjudged by anti-spam systems.
● Weighing migration and self-built traffic: Another possible route is to reduce reliance on the single entrance of X and shift towards other social channels, wallet embedded entrances, or self-built sites to capture user traffic, thereby avoiding the uncertainties brought by platform policies. However, this also means relinquishing X's large user base and dissemination efficiency, investing more resources into brand building and user education. For most small and medium development teams, making a choice between "platform traffic dividends" and "compliant controllable spaces" will become an unavoidable strategic decision for a while.
Where will the next round of tug-of-war between the platform and the ecosystem go?
This tightening of the API expectations seems more like X's attempt to rebalance when spam information and inducement behaviors are gradually approaching the edge of losing control, rather than a wholesale denial of on-chain innovation or the Solana ecosystem. By focusing on specific high-risk behaviors to delineate boundaries, the platform hopes to avoid user experiences being devoured by "wool-shearing scripts" and opaque designs while continuing to carry the imagination of Web3. Future policy directions are likely to shift from a one-size-fits-all "technical labels" approach to "refined governance" targeting specific behavioral patterns, using more accurate rules to distinguish normal automated tools and malicious spam generators. For readers, a more thought-provoking question is: during this transitional phase where Web2 platforms carry Web3 applications, who should define what constitutes "valid consent," and who should decide what level of "acceptable risk" ordinary users should bear? Is it determined by the platform's brand and traffic advantages, or shaped by developers, users, and regulators together forging a new mixed paradigm consensus? This tug-of-war around authorization and boundaries is far from over.
Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
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。
