2025-12-26 12:25:34

The level of freedom in creating on certain Web3 platforms is indeed impressive. Simply participate in discussions about projects you're interested in to receive platform incentives and compete for rankings on the leaderboard.

What makes these projects stand out? They focus on solving real problems within the Web3 ecosystem. For example, some teams are dedicated to code optimization, protocol alignment, and ecosystem development, which are critical areas that Web3 urgently needs to address.

This model that combines creative incentives with project screening is attracting more and more insightful participants to join Web3 discussions.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

18 Likes

Reward
18
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TokenUnlocker

· 7h ago

The ranking system, to put it simply, is just using incentives to encourage more talking. How many projects can truly solve problems? The incentive model is good, but it depends on whether the team is reliable. Don't just focus on climbing the ranks. This is what I want to see: projects need to have real substance, not just hype. Some people are genuinely working, while others are just here to exploit the system. It's hard to tell. There is freedom, but I'm worried there are too many actors. Having more discussions doesn't necessarily mean the problem is solved. We need to be cautious about that. The combination of incentives and screening can indeed identify serious participants. The ranking effect is a double-edged sword; it can easily lead the direction astray.

View OriginalReply0

RektRecorder

· 7h ago

Honestly, the ranking system is a bit useless; truly valuable projects are not lacking discussions at all. This incentive model seems to just encourage more people to speak up, but what about the quality? Code optimization definitely requires someone to do it, but most of these are just vapor projects hyping concepts.

View OriginalReply0

HorizonHunter

· 7h ago

That ranking system... to be honest, it can easily encourage bad behavior. While a good incentive mechanism is great, I'm worried it might evolve into another like farm scheme.

View OriginalReply0

MaticHoleFiller

· 7h ago

It sounds like a "chat while earning" kind of experience, but I've seen too many leaderboard tricks like this. Honestly, you still need real substance to stand out. Code optimization and those tasks definitely need people to do them; I'm just worried everyone is just playing with concepts. Who do you think this model will attract? I'm a bit curious.

View OriginalReply0

Blockchainiac

· 7h ago

The ranking system really tends to be addictive, but honestly, how many can actually earn real money? Speaking of which, code optimization is indeed a pain point. There are too many garbage protocols in the current ecosystem. Is there an incentive just for participating in discussions? It feels like a new trick to harvest users' funds. Ultimately, it depends on whether the team is actually doing real work; otherwise, no matter how attractive the mechanism is, it's all in vain.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoFortuneTeller

· 7h ago

The leaderboard system sounds great, but how much truly useful discussion is there? Too many incentives might just lead to more spam posts... Code optimization definitely requires people, but most people are just here for the tokens haha. This model looks very promising, but I'm worried it might turn into another "money-making game." The team that really gets things done needs to stand out from the noise, which is no easy task.

View OriginalReply0

RumbleValidator

· 7h ago

Ranking competition? To put it simply, it's still about whose validation nodes are more stable; you can't get creative with fake incentive data.

View OriginalReply0