Recently, I saw discussions about royalties in the secondary market, basically about whether "creators should continue to earn revenue." My point of indifference is that: royalties are more like a social contract, not blockchain magic; when market sentiment shifts, everyone will prioritize taking the cheaper route, no matter how beautifully the contract is written, it can't stop "I don't want to pay." (Seeing this, I also feel a bit guilty...)

On the other hand, during airdrop season, this points + task platform, which is anti-witchcraft, trains many people like clocking in at work: not asking about the work, only whether the rules can be bypassed or costs can be saved. If the creator economy also turns into "faking metrics for exposure," then in the end, only gameplay might remain, with no content left.

What I personally want to see more is: whether we can break down "support" into more granular, verifiable actions, such as holding duration, participation in governance, or contributions through secondary creations. Payment shouldn't rely on forced siphoning, but on recognition that people are willing to be seen. Anyway, this current controversy seems to be a reminder: if the money flow design is poor, no one should pretend to be pure.