From Chain Smell to Now: Liu Feng on Changes in Encrypted Media and Information Screening

Editor|Wu talks about blockchain

Original title:

Talk to Liu Feng, the former editor-in-chief of Chainwen, about the current state of encrypted media. How to find real and effective information? (Encrypted information source included)

This podcast is from Web3 101. Liu Feng, editor-in-chief of Chainwen, and Wu said that Editor-in-Chief Colin and Jack, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Blockchain Dynamics, discussed the current challenges and dilemmas faced by traditional media and cryptocurrency media. The two also discussed how ordinary readers can get more true, more accurate, and more effective information in the confusing cryptocurrency information field. This conversation was posted in June 2025, and some information may be out of date.

What Wu said about the beginning and development process

Liu Feng: Welcome to Web3 101. Today we are inviting Colin Wu, the founder of Wu. We would like to discuss a topic, that is, in today's currency industry, how can information be screened and confirmed in today's complex and confusing information? Of course, the topic will probably go far beyond that. Mr. Wu, can you briefly introduce yourself?

Colin: Hi, I'm Colin, the founder of WubLockChain. Wu said it is now a cryptocurrency media and content platform covering English, Chinese, and a few other languages. At the end of 2019, I started a simple public account myself and started writing some content, then slowly recruited some colleagues to work with me, and it grew to where it is now.

Liu Feng: The reason I invited Lao Wu to do this program is because I am often asked the question: In the world of cryptocurrency and Web3, how can I learn quickly and get really valuable information? All three of us are from the media, so we can only start from the media's perspective and hope to inspire our listeners. Another particularly important reason is that I think Wu said it is one of the media that has grown very fast and has been very successful in the past few years. The “success” here isn't about how much money has been earned, but rather that it has gained widespread trust in the cryptocurrency space.

So when was Lao Wu, the Twitter account of WubLockChain (Wu said official account in English), officially launched?

Colin: I don't remember this very clearly; it's probably between 2021 and 2022.

Liu Feng: Assuming it's 2022, it's been over three years now. I took a look this morning. The account currently has over 530,000 followers. This number is critical, because Wu said it is a media with a Chinese team as the main, but this account mainly publishes in English, and its number of fans is close to the level of the world's leading crypto media. Of course, established media such as CoinDesk, which has been in operation for 12 years, currently has millions of followers on Twitter.

In addition to this, Wu's English account is already one of the most influential blockchain media currently. Not only is the content published entirely in English, but in my opinion, it has become a frequently cited source of information by a large number of international media, important investors, and industry participants. So when I say “success,” I mean influence in this sense. Lao Wu, can you share how you think Wu's account has grown rapidly over the past few years and won the trust of the industry? What factors do you think contributed to everyone's attention and trust in you?

Colin: The growth of our English account is actually quite “fantastic.” As a Chinese team, many people actually want to be an English platform, whether it's a media, content platform, exchange, or project party. But not much is actually being done; in particular, there are even fewer content-driven platforms. Exchanges and project parties can drive development through significant capital investment or other means, but our content-only team mainly relies on the content itself.

There were a few key elements to our start at the time.

The first is that there was a lot of major news in China at the time, probably related to evictions, policy support, important meetings, etc. We rushed to write this related news at the time. Our characteristic is that we post very fast. This is related to my background as a reporter for a news agency. Our style is to pursue speed and simplicity while ensuring accuracy as much as possible. This style formed a wonderful cycle in Western markets at the time — many people thought that as soon as our news came out, currency prices would fluctuate.

In the cryptocurrency industry, the influence of a media or KOL often depends not on whether it actually affects the market, but on everyone's “belief” that it will affect the market. This psychological expectation itself may trigger a market reaction. So we became such a character at the time, and many people felt that our content might drive price fluctuations.

The second factor is quite coincidental, that is, when we first started, CZ (Zhao Changpeng) was already very influential, but he didn't have any prior communication with us, so he frequently retweeted our English content. He even publicly stated that we are the only Chinese media he watches. Although we have always insisted on neutrality, we are sometimes taken away by him for reporting negative news about Binance, and then revisited and retweeted for positive stories, but none of this matters. In the cold start phase, CZ's forwarding really contributed a lot.

But I think what's more central is the first point. This is also similar to the rise of some influential media over the past few years. For example, early chain news had a great influence on VC coins, and many people invested after reading its reports. This includes things that everyone is familiar with in the current cycle, such as Formula News, Lookonchain, etc.

Of course, Lookonchain is slightly different, but what they all have in common is that the market believes their content will have an impact on the price. They even included the earlier world of gold finance and coins. In the 1CO era, they were more shouting about single-type information. So I think that when Wu said it was done, it was mainly for these two reasons.

Does the media drive currency prices: the mechanism by which information affects the market

Liu Feng: I actually think there are several questions in your introduction that we can discuss next, as well as some particularly interesting phenomena. The first question is the relationship between media and currency prices — is media capable of driving currency price fluctuations necessarily a good medium? Despite what you just mentioned, this phenomenon is a key factor for you to drive product growth during the cold start phase. Another point is one of your important readers — your important audience CZ. The so-called CZ is actually the founder of Binance, Zhao Changpeng, and everyone in the cryptocurrency community is used to calling him that. Sometimes he loves what you're reporting, but sometimes he doesn't like it, so he takes it off at every turn. This raises another question: As a media or information platform, do audience preferences influence the judgment and output of our content?

I think Wu is a media worthy of respect. Apart from the large audience you just mentioned — this is a form of recognition, another thing that impressed me is speed. You mentioned this, and I know that your requirements for content are equal in terms of fairness and efficiency. Also, I think your personality is particularly suited to media work: you have a critical eye on things and can present content with a calm attitude.

In today's program, I especially wanted to provide some friendly guidance to listeners who are just starting out in the cryptocurrency world. I'd also like to hear from you. As a media person, how do you find that kind of exclusive, quick information when processing news? When you see a message, how do you confirm its trustworthiness? Because fast, accurate, and credible news should be a basic requirement for all readers. This is actually also the basic skill of our work. Lao Wu, would you like to talk about it first?

Colin: No problem, what Mr. Liu said really relates to the essence of the news. The essence of news is to be both fast and accurate, but the two themselves often clash. In the field of cryptocurrencies, this contradiction has been magnified even more clearly. In some fields, such as the entertainment industry, accuracy may not be that important; in traditional finance, speed may not be that critical. However, in the coin industry, the contradiction between speed and accuracy has become very sharp. Because many investors will invest according to the speed of your news, especially short-term trades, once you post the wrong information, the consequences will be very embarrassing.

We've seen plenty of examples of this. For example, a few days ago, A posted a message about Memecoin, but this news later proved to be very problematic. First, A cites a very small source, and there is no secondary verification; second, they haven't even specified a specific source. As a result, this incident was fake. Many KOLs were damaged as a result, and they started scolding A, saying that they posted fake news and caused everyone to lose money.

And A's response was also quite interesting: if we were to encounter this situation ourselves, we would definitely apologize very sincerely, because the editor's income wasn't high, and usually it was very hard work. Occasionally, there are mistakes. I hope everyone can understand it. But their attitude is that when we reported the news, you used it to make money, and no one came to thank us. Why did you scold us when we made a little mistake? This statement also seems to have some truth to it. This actually brings up another topic, which is about paywalls, whether to charge for news, etc.

Back to the question you just asked, how do we usually confirm the accuracy of the news? I think the first key is to realize that the contradiction between quick and accurate is particularly acute in the coin industry. We definitely all want to do better, and we also want the community to be more tolerant of the media, especially today when professional requirements are getting higher and higher.

The second point is about how to determine the accuracy of the source of information. Frankly speaking, the media in the coin industry do seem very unprofessional in the eyes of traditional media people. For example, traditional media have very basic reporting standards. An important exclusive piece of information must be cross-verified by at least three independent sources; even if standards are lowered, there must be two. However, many times in the coin industry, they don't even have this basic common sense. People often see that the source is just a rumor, and it can be turned into an official news release.

From the reader's point of view, how can I find more accurate information? The problem is more complicated. Because you have to ask yourself: do you really want “accurate” information or “fast” information? Especially in this cycle, Memecoin is very popular, and Memecoin is essentially not something based on physical value; it represents an emotion.

So for Memecoin, whether the information is accurate or not is probably not important at all; the important thing is “fast.” That's why KOLs are so popular now, because people don't expect their information to be accurate, but as long as they're fast, they may help you make money. Some KOLs will even send a message “buy quickly” and then send a “sell quickly” message. After going back and forth in the middle, someone may have relied on this time to make money, so their users will also find it useful.

But for our media, we are faced with a dilemma: do we report some vague news quickly, or would we rather slow down and be more accurate? I don't have a completely clear answer myself. But as far as Wu said, we have always been steadfastly biased towards accuracy; this is our characteristic. Of course, I'm not going to criticize others because they want speed, because for them, the other way is probably a survival path.

Liu Feng: I think I'm really a failure. Actually, I want to “do a routine” for you to give you some particularly practical tips, such as how to get exclusive news — then make friends and meet people who really understand the industry and have good stuff; and how to verify a piece of information — then you have to know which sources of information are reliable. You see Bloomberg news is definitely more trustworthy than “Roadside News,” right? Originally, I thought you could list 10 or 20 credible sources of information. As a result, you didn't accept the offer at all; instead, you raised a more complicated question.

In fact, we may discuss this question for an hour, or even ten hours, and not necessarily be able to explain it clearly. That is: can accurate information actually make money? This is an issue worth discussing in depth.

Colin: Right, I think what you just said makes a lot of sense. Maybe what I just said was a little off, because Web3 101 probably has a wider audience, and they may not be able to understand the details I just mentioned. The more basic techniques you mentioned are actually correct; indeed, I should tell you what are the most basic ways to make judgments.

Liu Feng: It doesn't matter, I believe the listeners are very smart. The question you asked is actually a deeper one — do we read the media to know the truth, or to make money?

Colin: Yes, the article you wrote five years ago was really good. From my point of view, I actually don't think I have anything to add.

The controversy over whether the media can help users make money

Liu Feng: After listening to what Mr. Wu just said, I think we can further discuss a more complicated question: when we all come to the cryptocurrency industry and Crypto, do we read the news media to find the truth, or to make money?

Colin: I think this is something that varies from person to person. There is indeed a big difference between users, and everyone defines “making money” differently. For example, some people want to earn 1 million, 10 million, or even 100 million; while others just want to earn 100U or even 50U every day. The needs of different groups vary greatly. You're like some traditional professionals. They may not read the news to make money right away, but for some retail investors, they may really want to be able to bill based on what you post, or even open some gambling-like contracts. It really depends on what your audience is made of.

Liu Feng: Well, I accept your answer, and I agree with it. Then let me ask this question more directly; Jack can answer it too. All three of us are media people, so can we guarantee that the content we make is for our readers to make money? Personally, I must admit, I can't do that. If everyone is listening to this podcast to make money, then I'm afraid I don't have any wealth passwords to provide. When I first started Chainwen, I didn't do this because I thought I would definitely be able to help others make money.

Colin: Yes, a very different set of values actually emerged here. Take “Formula News,” which once posted a long tweet with a central idea: “Every piece of my news is about making money for everyone.” Furthermore, it must first make its own money through this news. Their mechanism is probably to use bots to bill in advance. Bots respond very quickly before posting news. Well, if you keep up with this news and buy early, you might be able to make money too. Of course, it would earn more on its own. I don't know what Mr. Liu thinks of these values.

Liu Feng: I agree with this product concept. I think if we can actually make such a product, I support it. I think it's a very idealized form of product. But what I'm more skeptical about is the sustainability of this product, and we can continue to discuss this. I personally don't make moral judgments about these values, and I don't want to label them “good” or “bad.” After all, in a highly financialized industry, “making money” is indeed a generally recognized symbol. But my question is, is it realistic to be able to make money all the time? I'll draw myself a question mark on this question.

Jack: When I entered the crypto media, I was just in time for a very unique era — a time when stories of the metaverse, Web 3.0, NFTs, DeFi, etc. were all hot, and it was a stage where many traditional investors could also pay the bill. It's completely different from the chaotic period of 2014, 2015, or the 2017 or 2018 ICO, and today's meme-dominated phase. At that time, many people only looked at the crypto media because they thought the industry's ideas were very novel.

The task of many emerging media at the time was to introduce new concepts to meet everyone's needs for understanding and investment. For example, if I want to invest in this field, what do I need to know? What data should I focus on? What kind of analytical logic do you learn? This period was more of an intellectual and conceptual orientation. However, before the ICO era, and after the meme era, the industry was more biased towards “information trading,” especially the so-called “news trading” model after “Formula News.”

I was very impressed. In the 1CO era, I often saw Mr. Wu's Wu talk quoted by many overseas English-language media. Much of the information, whether it's the 1CO project or the dynamics of the trading platform, is thought to influence market price fluctuations. At that time, the foundation of Crypto was actually still very weak, but in today's meme era, there doesn't seem to be anything left, just short-term PVP games or operations.

The value of news media at this stage is more biased towards serving transactions — on-chain data and market fluctuations are the main content of the news. In particular, the emergence of Lookonchain, as Mr. Wu mentioned earlier, or other Twitter accounts that track addresses on the chain, has changed the entire content structure of the Crypto media. As can also be seen from the content ratio of many media newsletters, most of the reports are highly related to meme price fluctuations and on-chain address changes.

Liu Feng: But I've heard that you're actually describing a phenomenon: one thing people like to do now is help users make money by providing information related to transactions. My question is — do you really believe the media can do this? Are you confident that “the media can help readers make money”?

Jack: Of course not, unless you're an intraday trader yourself (Captain P). However, if you are a media person, this actually contradicts the ethical principles of traditional media; essentially, you are “calling for a list.”

The role of insight and subjective judgment in investment information

Liu Feng: So Colin, are you confident to answer this question? I mean, can you create a type of content that will ensure that everyone makes money?

Colin: I'll give you two small examples. These might seem like just minor details. For example, the USDC market panicked because of the Silicon Valley Bank thunderstorm, and many people started selling USDC. I posted a comment on my Twitter at the time, and my judgment was: because there is a very high level of synergy between USDC and Coinbase, if there is a real problem with USDC, Coinbase will definitely take action, either through loan support or direct acquisition.

After a long time, I had dinner with a friend, and he told me, “I just saw your tweet and decided not to sell USDC. It really saved me a lot of money.” Of course, what I thought in my heart was: “The money you saved didn't split me at all, haha.” However, it is true that later facts also proved that at the time, Coinbase did prepare a loan of several billion dollars to support USDC, and also considered buying it.

Of course, that tweet wasn't a piece of news; it was just my personal judgment. Can you write it as a piece of news? Actually, you can't. Because it's just a guess. It may or may be wrong, about 780 percent certain.

Liu Feng: I would categorize this kind of content as “insight.” It comes from your understanding and judgment of the information, and is a subjective interpretation. This kind of judgment often has a high accuracy rate, but in essence, it also has the probability of being wrong. Your friend thanked you, but from my point of view as a media person, your tweet is more like an “investment proposal”; it's not a “news product” in the strict sense of the word.

This is what I want to talk about in particular. If we actually analyze the nature of the information, on the one hand, it can be a “fact”, a black and white content that can be clearly verified. This kind of information can be classified as factual. However, the information may also be an “opinion” or “insight”. This content is subjective and not easy to verify. It may seem right in hindsight, but it can also be wrong.

This kind of uncertain content has a place in many of today's so-called “money-making effects” or “money-making opportunities.” The reason some people are able to make money is because they draw a subjective conclusion with a high success rate based on facts, and then make a successful transaction. However, if we look at it from the standpoint of a media that “takes facts as the core obligation,” this kind of subjective judgment cannot directly deduce the conclusion of “whether it can make money.”

If you are providing investment conclusions with clear recommendations, then this is more like what an investment advisor should do. At this time, we will also see in many media that they cite reports from investment banks or research institutions. These institutions will provide valuations of some assets, etc. I think the division is very clear this way.

Colin: Right, I think your division is unquestionable. This also goes back to the essence of journalism. If a piece of news is to be established, it can't be as personal judgment; it only needs 70%, 80%, or even 90% accuracy. Preferably, a piece of news is 95% or even 100% accurate. In other words, if you want to make money by posting news, it's very difficult.

Of course, as Jack mentioned earlier, such as tracking some changes in Memecoin, or a model that quickly publishes exchange announcements like “Formula News,” is probably one of the few ways that can be done. But as you just said, Professor Liu, this kind of “formula news” model doesn't seem to be sustainable in the long term. What I want to express is: if the media were to try to become a channel to help people make money, it is actually very difficult.

Liu Feng: Actually, there are some media that make users make money, right?

Colin: Not exactly; I think the more accurate statement is that users have a very strong desire to “make money through media.”

Liu Feng: So what I want to tell users is that if you think that any media or piece of information itself can help you make money, that's a bit naive. I might want to break this naivety because the truth is often much more complicated than that. I'd like to share my views on the media model of “using quick information or even on-chain data to drive trading decisions.”

I think this kind of strategy really works at certain periods and at specific times. But what really makes people money is not the information itself, but an “investment strategy.” For example, if you see a large amount of Bitcoin deposits entering an exchange, then you can assume that these BTCs are probably ready to be sold, so the market may decline in the short term.

This logic is simple; it actually embodies a trading strategy. Similarly, why did people use to say “Aeolus Trading” information is useful? Because over the past long period of time, once some coins are listed on major exchanges such as the Korea Exchange, Binance, and Coinbase, they may cause prices to rise. This is because people are based on the assumption that these exchanges can bring attention and liquidity, and this effect is particularly evident in an environment where market liquidity is poor. So this is also a “short-term trading strategy.”

As a result, information platforms that provide “signal factors” for such strategies seem to make money. But I think the reason behind this is the strategy that works, not the magic of the message itself.

If we expand our perspective and look at global financial markets, especially large hedge funds, they have all kinds of complex trading strategies, and countless variables and factors are being monitored and adjusted. Even so, no one dares to say that one factor can make money forever. So what I want to say is that if users are willing to use this kind of information as part of a strategy, they can actually make money, which is a good thing. But you must keep reviewing your trading logic. I don't believe any successful hedge fund can completely unadjust its strategy. Factors that work today may not work tomorrow. I think this judgment is worthy of recognition.

Colin: I totally agree. Because in the coin industry, there are indeed many different types of people and different trading strategies, but there are actually only that many people who actually do short-term transactions, not many.

The reflexivity of the cryptocurrency market and information-driven self-actualization

Liu Feng: Yes, I want to go a little deeper. At the end of last year, I picked up Soros's “Financial Alchemy” again and read it again because I suddenly realized that this was really interesting. I've discussed it with my friends a long time ago, and there is actually a very strong “backlash” problem in the cryptocurrency market. If you've read Soros's books, it's easy to understand this concept.

As for the so-called “reflexivity,” Soros mentioned two very interesting concepts: one is “falsehood.” He believes that almost all subjective opinions, even people's interpretations of phenomena and facts, are actually highly subjective, and many of them are probably wrong. And this kind of misunderstanding will always exist and cannot be avoided.

“Reflexivity” refers to a phenomenon where certain judgments we think are factual promote their occurrence because they are widely believed. This phenomenon is particularly evident in the cryptocurrency market; in particular, price changes are particularly easy to reflect. For example, when most people believe that a certain trading strategy is effective, as long as a “factor” supporting this strategy appears, everyone will agree that it will drive the price of the currency to rise or fall. So, just because everyone believes it, it actually affects the price of the currency — this forms a process of “self-realization.”

In the crypto market, this is extremely easy to happen. This is because of several characteristics of this market: assets often do not have clear pricing standards, liquidity is relatively insufficient, and liquidity often determines prices. Coupled with the extreme sensitivity of market participants to information, when an expectation is widely accepted and accepted, this “consensus” will turn into reality. In other words, Soros's logic is actually very applicable in the cryptocurrency market.

Of course, how to “teach” this set of logic to others is a more complicated matter, so I won't go into it here. But I hope to use this perspective to give really smart listeners some inspiration to think more deeply about this issue. This actually responds to the phenomenon Lao Wu just mentioned: Why did the price of an asset in the market begin to fluctuate after you posted a piece of news? Why does this situation seem to keep happening again and again later? Is it possible that this is a process of “self-realization”?

I think this is an open question, and I'm sure there are many people in our audience who are particularly experienced and willing to think about it, and they can explore it further. We're certainly no experts on this, but we've seen a phenomenon where certain news products or data platforms do seem to present an opportunity to make money.

So is the reason behind this phenomenon because this information itself is valuable? Or more accurately, is it really sustainable? I'm personally skeptical about this kind of “sustainability.” Because I think a lot of the time, it's probably just some effective trading strategy that works at a particular stage.

But on the other hand, I would also like to say that the reason this phenomenon is possible is precisely because there is a very strong “rebelliousness” in the crypto market. If a thousand people rush into a scarce asset with low liquidity, such as a MEME token, then its price might actually be hyped up. Then more people saw the price soar and followed suit, creating a stronger cycle of self-realization.

So, the answer to this question itself is very complicated, and this is just part of the complexity of this world, and we must learn to accept it.

The Public Nature of the Media and Commercial Dilemmas: The Reasons Behind the Wave of Acquisitions

Colin: Mr. Liu, you must have noticed that in fact, many mainstream media in the cryptocurrency industry, derived from the topic “whether the media helps users make money” we just talked about, are also facing the dual dilemma of “public nature” and “profitability.” But in the end, the mainstream media didn't seem to be doing well. For example, CoinDesk was bought by Bullish, and The Block was also acquired. Some media in the Chinese-speaking world have either been bought or are seeking a path to be acquired. Why is this becoming a trend? Wouldn't you find this a bit sad?

Liu Feng: If I were to use a more straightforward term, it would be “how to define the term bad.” In my opinion, the problem is probably on two levels: one is not being able to survive at all, such as not being able to pay wages; the other is that even though they are alive, they no longer have influence or dignity. But I think this is not just the current state of the media in the coin industry; it is a state faced by all “traditional media” around the world: increasingly weak and struggling.

But if you look at it another way, what exactly is the media? Do you think Douyin and Xiaohongshu are media? These new forms of media are actually already one of the most profitable business models in the world. Therefore, the decline of traditional media is an irreversible fact, and there is no need to argue any further.

But I want to emphasize that I don't think these “traditional media” are completely worthless. They may not be particularly profitable, but I think they are still the most honorable cause in the world. You'll find that some of the richest people in the world, once they have made enough money, are particularly fond of buying up reputable traditional media such as Bezos. It shows that, to a certain extent, the media is still a “symbol of status” or a symbol of “public influence.”

Even though the business of CoinDesk and The Block doesn't look that good right now, they are still doing important and positive work. CoinDesk once triggered a ripple effect on FTX through a report, and recently conducted an in-depth investigation into Movement Labs to uncover many industry scandals.

Colin: Yes, I think this also shows that when a media outlet has a relatively “kind” financier or buyer behind it, it can report more calmly and professionally.

Liu Feng: I'm not sure if their financial owners are “kind,” but I think their professionalism is still there. Nor can I judge whether they will be able to maintain the ultimate 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 don't understand crypto, don't understand the industry, etc. I don't think these are important. What I value more is that their starting point is not for traffic, not for everyone to make money, but to really tell some facts and truths inside and outside the industry that they think are important. I think that's the value of media.

So if anyone thinks, “If I read this media and it can't help me make money, it has no value, and it shouldn't exist,” I think this is the biggest sorrow.

Liu Feng: Well, we can expand on this topic. Do you think the current cryptocurrency media are still trustworthy?

Colin: I'm speaking on a few levels. If we start from Wu's point of view, of course we want to be a trustworthy medium. But wishing alone is not enough; in the end, we have to go back to the original question of whether it can be both fast and accurate. This is a very difficult task. Moreover, you must have a certain level of profitability to maintain a high standard team. You can't just require editors to meet standards; you also have to give them enough support.

As for the media in the crypto industry as a whole, I think there has been progress overall. You, like some of the early media, were relatively low in terms of credibility.

Liu Feng: I basically can't see them anymore.

Colin: Right. There were also some new media trying to enter the previous cycle, but most of them disappeared after only a month. What is left behind after the big waves are basically some relatively established media that have been working for many years. Whether in the English world or the Chinese world, the remaining few media still uphold some basic values. Overall, I think it's quite trustworthy.

Colin: But if you go a little deeper, the “trustworthy” standard itself is actually complicated for users. Everyone understands “trustworthiness” differently. Some want to see information that can make money, and others want it fast enough. So this “trustworthiness” can actually be explained from various angles.

Liu Feng: Yes, everyone's favorite phrase is “Trustworthiness is a spectrum”, but everyone is in a different position on the spectrum. We all live in our own “information cocoon”.

The conflict between opinion leaders and the media intensifies, and the information attack and defense war escalates

Colin: Coming back to this question, I actually wanted to ask Mr. Liu about a phenomenon that I am also a bit confused about. This era is actually different from the past. The media is now on a more equal or even weaker platform with KOLs and even some “powerful people”. In the past, the media were very powerful and had the ability to examine and challenge these people, but now these people have more fans and more power in public opinion.

I recently noticed a phenomenon, such as the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg continuing to report on the relationship between Binance and Trump or Trump family projects. Binance or CZ's strategy is not to respond or deny, but it attacks the media itself. The operation is very much like Trump's style — directly accusing the Wall Street Journal of collecting money and discrediting himself, yet refusing to talk about some of the key messages. This phenomenon is now becoming more common. Look at Trump, Musk, and CZ. When faced with reports they don't want to see, their first reaction is often to stigmatize the media. I don't know what you think?

Liu Feng: I must say that this kind of behavior is very disrespectable. It is their duty for the media to ask questions; the party being asked is free to respond or refuse to respond, but should not be treated as an attack. We originally wanted to live in a decent world, but it seems like that decency is slowly fading away.

Today's public discussion is no longer a discussion of the issue itself; it has fallen into a state of attacking each other and throwing dirty water on each other, leaving the discussion off the core. I have also observed that traditional media are indeed biased against the crypto industry, and this is true. But at the same time, if we evaluate the media and public figures, such as Zhao Changpeng, Trump, and others, on a “credibility spectrum” — leaving aside emotions and positions, we can actually determine who is in which quadrant.

I have worked in corporate reputation management, and I know that the core of “reputation” is to establish credibility. But in this day and age, it seems like people don't care about “trustworthiness” at all; they only care about “influence” (influence). But is influence really traffic?

Colin: Right, that's where my confusion lies. Nowadays, people don't seem to care that much about the “trustworthiness” standard. Look at many MEME coin KOLs. They may have sent air coins, called for orders, and even cut chives in the past, but now many people still trust them, and even trust them very much, because there are indeed people who have made money through them.

Liu Feng: Yes, we must accept this reality: in today's world, conflicts are very intense, it is becoming harder and harder to understand each other, and many common understandings of past values are falling apart. Every group is building its own “trust system”. When you say “what is trustworthy,” it is already difficult to have a uniform standard. Trump's supporters, for example, really believe every word he says; they are willing to charge 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 and a world where we can discuss and find trust. Although we often talk about “trustless” in the crypto world, in fact, it is precisely because there is no institutionalized trust that the reputation of individuals or institutions that can be established becomes more important. It's also a scarce value.

Colin: Does this also have something to do with the current information recommendation mechanism? Twitter, for example, particularly encourages short, quick, and direct forms of expression.

Liu Feng: I think the recommendation mechanism is just a tool; the real problem is the reward mechanism behind it. In human society, why do we want to listen when someone talks? One possibility is that he is loud, and the other is that he is famous and trustworthy.

In traditional societies, we are taught to be “trustworthy people,” because it allows you to be trusted and given opportunities by others — this is a positive incentive. However, in today's online world, everything is monetized and trafficked, especially on social platforms. Traffic monetization is the most direct way.

This is why so many self-media and content creators are willing to distort facts and create gimmicks to attract attention. It's not because the recommendation mechanism is wrong, but because the recommendation mechanism drives traffic, which in turn brings revenue. This complete mechanism changed the social order that originally centered on “reputation.” Now, reputation isn't worth it; traffic is worth it. So I think the problem isn't with the tool, but with the “incentive structure” we set for this tool. That's probably the logic.

The impact of social media monetization on content quality and how to screen credible information

Colin: I think there are some very interesting phenomena right now. For example, have you seen the recently popular “Kaito”? It ranks KOLs, and recently even launched a list for the Chinese and Korean regions. This list makes traffic monetization even more blatant. Every day, you can see some KOLs showing where they are ranked today. Some big players have followed themselves, retweeted themselves, and then added more points to the system. It directly monetized, digitized and made public traffic, and became a very strong “traffic baton.”

Liu Feng: Well, I don't really understand the ranking algorithm behind Kaito, but I think this is critical. Because different algorithms have their own factors, whoever can master these factors can influence the results — this is the same logic as Google SEO back then. We've seen some spam sites or casino sites before. They do a good job of SEO, and the pages rank ahead, but clicking in isn't what you want at all. This is humans playing against machines. If Kaito discloses the algorithm, it will inevitably be optimized and manipulated by others; if you don't disclose it, it's also a black box operation, making it difficult to judge the value of the list.

Especially if, as you said, advertising can influence rankings, then that's a big problem. If a person is ranked high because he posts a lot of ads, does that mean that people like to watch his content? I don't think readers are here to “enjoy ads.”

Colin: So this has also drawn a lot of criticism. Many people say that Kaito has made the Twitter stream “dirty,” and there are advertising tweets everywhere.

Liu Feng: My opinion on this kind of criticism is — if you think the information flow is polluted, then you have to take the initiative to clean up your own information flow. Everyone is responsible for choosing what they want to focus on and filter. If everyone can self-regulate their own information flow, this model will naturally be abandoned. The responsibility cannot be entirely placed on the platform or algorithm.

Colin: The reality isn't that extreme. Many KOLs actually have mixed content; 70% are dry goods and 30% are advertisements. Many users say they probably don't like that 30% of ads, but they don't want to mute the entire issue for this part of the content.

Liu Feng: This is where it really gets complicated. The information world has never been black and white. Even content sources 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'm worried about is that future information pollution will not be the chaos we see today, but will be more hidden — true and false information is deeply integrated and difficult to distinguish, and will directly affect our judgment, knowledge system, and decision-making power. But because of this, “trustworthy people” and “trustworthy information nodes” will become scarce and more important at that point. At that time, we may re-understand the value of “reputation.”

Colin: I think I can go back to the very core question you asked at the beginning — most of the readers of Web3 101 aren't people who have been in the cryptocurrency industry for a long time, so how can you find a more reliable source of information in this situation? I also did a little reflection. Actually, I think your article from a few years ago is already very classic, so you can read it.

Articles shared by Liu Feng in 2020:

https://abmedia.io/how-to-falsify-the-truth-in-an-information-polluted-environment

From my own perspective, I have a few suggestions:

First, always maintain a high level of skepticism. Let's not talk about making money; we'll just talk about how to judge whether the information is reliable. In particular, some short, extreme information is actually more like this, the more skeptical it is.

Second, once doubt arises, the source of the information must be verified. Two aspects have changed particularly drastically over the past few years: the development of AI, and the sharp rise in the influence of Twitter and KOL.

There are several dimensions of inspection information that can now be obtained. For example, you can use AI to help make judgments — not to say you fully trust it, but at least as an aid to reference. Also, you can search Twitter to see if this message was retweeted or commented on by some top KOLs.

Regarding KOL, although many people think this term is derogatory, I feel it is important to distinguish it. Tools like Kaito that do KOL rankings actually rely on an AI-created relational networking algorithm — a method of “who follows each other and who retweets each other.” This logic is actually quite scientific.

Here's another simple trick: For example, if you see an account posting a piece of news you think is worth watching, you can click on his homepage. Twitter has a feature that shows how many of the people you follow have also followed this account. If there isn't an account you trust that follows this person, then he probably isn't a trustworthy source of information. If many of your followers follow him, then trustworthiness is a plus.

Of course, these methods are only aids. In this age of information overload, judging the “authenticity of information” requires a more complex integrated way of thinking rather than simply black and white.

So I'll summarize a few final points:

1. If you are a person who pursues “authenticity” and “trustworthiness” (in fact, many people don't pursue this), you must cultivate a strong sense of doubt and criticism. For example, the Telegram group Wu mentioned has a fixed group rule: all messages you see on Telegram are fraudulent by default, and then slowly filter out if they are not scams. This mentality is actually very suitable for all channels of information.

2. You can flexibly use AI tools, social graph analysis tools, and data products such as Kaito to build your own information verification network and form a more efficient recognition mechanism.

Liu Feng: Thank you so much for the summary, haha. I think you put it right. In fact, many of the information sources and channels I've recommended before have stopped. This is a sad thing in the cryptocurrency industry: after everyone earns money, no one takes the content seriously anymore.

The decline of traditional information sources, the new value of newsletters and podcasts

Liu Feng: I used to really like some newsletters, and I spent a lot of time on them. The newsletter may not be popular in the Chinese world, but it is a very mainstream and highly specialized information product in the English world. Good newsletter writers often have a wide range of information ingestion abilities, can carefully organize important information and then curate it, which is of great value. However, although Twitter now supports long posts, most of the content still serves traffic.

Comparatively speaking, I prefer English-language podcasts now; a lot of really in-depth content actually appears in podcasts. I think today's long texts are not as good as content automatically generated by AI. Many long texts actually don't deserve their length; on the contrary, they are easily misled by scary charts and logic. In contrast, the content conveyed by real-language organizations is more reliable.

As for the social graph analysis tool, I've used an excellent product in the past. It was made by a European developer. It uses Twitter followers, retweets, and likes to determine which accounts are more influential, and the effect far exceeds that of currently common Kaito products. However, due to Twitter's API policy changes, the project finally came to an end. Most of the similar tools that came out later caused the information to be distorted due to the addition of an incentive mechanism, which is a pity. Therefore, I manage the flow of information very carefully, don't pay attention to accounts, and maintain the quality of information.

Colin Wu: We, Wu, said that accounts never follow others because of advertising partnerships, and we are very strict about this. My personal account sometimes takes the initiative to follow people who don't have many fans but have very deep content, help them cold start, and even retweet recommendations. This kind of behavior can actually help them grow a lot.

Liu Feng: Real Treasure accounts often don't have a lot of fans. They may have one or two thousand followers, but the content is very valuable. Many KOLs with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of fans are worth being wary of. Finding these small, high-quality sources of information is critical, especially in the field of crypto. You can't always eat what others feed you, but learn to screen the information yourself.

Let me give you an example. We recruited a lot of interns when we first started Chainwen in 2018. One task was for them to add as many crypto-related WeChat groups as possible within a week. As a result, a particularly outgoing girl added 200 groups, and all of them turned out to be MLM groups. Other interns were added to groups of up to 10, and the quality was poor. This shows that if you can't find a good entry point, it's really hard to enter the crypto world. Therefore, we have always emphasized mentoring within the team, adding newcomers to groups we think are valuable, and telling them who they are and who can be trusted, so as to help them quickly establish a network of trust.

Colin Wu: I agree very much with you. I also joined some private groups to learn information. Although I can't participate in short-term trading in my career, I do feel that the quality of the core group's information is far superior to public channels. The structure of WeChat groups also conforms to the characteristics of a flat crypto community.

Liu Feng: Yes, the cryptocurrency world is flat and open. Everyone has a chance to speak out. Many insightful opinion leaders have grown up from unknown generations. As long as you can find these people and recognize the value of their content, the appeal of crypto will unfold. Of course, you also need to be alert to avoid being scammed.

Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

Compare the TG exchange group:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

Compare TG subscriptions:https://t.me/bitpush