In the crypto community, there's an interesting pattern worth noting. When creators cover trending projects, the noise around potential conflicts of interest tends to emerge mainly after something goes wrong. Yet many creators operate with partnerships, sponsorships, and paid collaborations baked into their work—the difference often comes down to how visible those disclosures are. The real question isn't whether incentives exist, but whether they're clearly signaled to the audience. Transparency in these relationships shapes community trust differently than the presence of relationships themselves.
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.
8 Likes
Reward
8
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
BackrowObserver
· 1h ago
Basically, no matter how you cooperate, the key is to let us see it... Otherwise, just wait for the community to blow up.
View OriginalReply0
ImpermanentPhilosopher
· 12h ago
Transparency sounds good in theory, but when it comes to interests, who still remembers... The conflicts of interest have long been overwhelming; it all depends on who gets caught.
View OriginalReply0
BrokeBeans
· 12h ago
Isn't this just the old trick in the crypto circle? Only start digging into the利益链 after something happens.
The key still depends on character. Some bloggers just honestly write disclaimers.
Why didn't they say anything when sending money? They only start digging after a crash.
Basically, it's information asymmetry. Retail investors always find out last.
Honestly, I don't care whether you took the money or not, just don't deceive me.
That's why I don't trust anyone's recommendations now; I have to keep my own eyes open.
View OriginalReply0
MissedAirdropAgain
· 12h ago
You're absolutely right. The key is transparency; otherwise, when the project fails and you try to shift blame, no one will listen to you.
View OriginalReply0
ZKSherlock
· 12h ago
Actually... this is just disclosure theater most of the time. everyone knows the partnerships exist—the question is whether audiences even *read* the fine print or if they're too busy chasing the next 100x.
Reply0
SleepTrader
· 12h ago
Well said, this is the true reflection of the crypto world. No one cares beforehand; only when it blows up do people start digging.
---
As for transparency, honestly, it depends on who is the first to have a major issue.
---
Actually, I'm more concerned about how many KOLs simply don't want to be transparent...
---
This logic is sound; the issue isn't the利益关系 itself, but concealment is the original sin.
---
Laughing to death, only after the project hits zero do they start criticizing creators for taking money. Why didn't they do it earlier?
---
Ultimately, trust is built on information symmetry. Too many people pretend not to see it.
---
After saying all this, it still comes down to whether anyone will actually verify the disclosure.
In the crypto community, there's an interesting pattern worth noting. When creators cover trending projects, the noise around potential conflicts of interest tends to emerge mainly after something goes wrong. Yet many creators operate with partnerships, sponsorships, and paid collaborations baked into their work—the difference often comes down to how visible those disclosures are. The real question isn't whether incentives exist, but whether they're clearly signaled to the audience. Transparency in these relationships shapes community trust differently than the presence of relationships themselves.