Edited by Wu Shuo Blockchain

This podcast episode features content from Web3 101. Former ChainNews editor-in-chief Liu Feng, along with Wu Shuo editor-in-chief Colin and BlockBeats deputy editor-in-chief Jack, discuss the challenges and dilemmas currently facing traditional and cryptocurrency media. They also discuss how ordinary readers can obtain more authentic, accurate, and effective information in the chaotic information landscape of cryptocurrency. This conversation was published in June 2025, and some information may be outdated.

The Start-up and Development of Wu Shuo

Liu Feng: Welcome to Web3 101. Today we've invited Colin Wu, the founder of Wu Shuo, to discuss a topic: in today's cryptocurrency world, with its incredibly complex and chaotic information landscape, how can we discern and verify information? Of course, the topic may extend far beyond this. Mr. Wu, could you briefly introduce yourself?

Colin: Hello everyone, I'm Colin, the founder of WuBlockchain. WuBlockchain is now a cryptocurrency media and content platform covering English, Chinese, and some other languages. At the end of 2019, I initially started a simple public account on my own to write some content, and later gradually recruited some colleagues to work together, which has developed into what it is today.

Liu Feng: The reason I invited Lao Wu to do this program is because I'm often asked a question: In the world of cryptocurrency and Web3, how can we quickly learn and acquire truly valuable information? All three of us come from media backgrounds, so we can only offer our perspective from a media standpoint, hoping to provide some insights for our listeners. Another particularly important reason is that I believe Wu Shuo is one of the fastest-growing and most successful media outlets in the past few years. Here, "success" doesn't refer to how much money they've made, but rather the widespread trust they've earned in the cryptocurrency field.

So, when was Lao Wu's (Wu's official English account) Twitter account officially launched?

Colin: I don't remember that very clearly, it was probably between 2021 and 2022.

Liu Feng: If we're talking about 2022, it's been over three years now. I checked this morning, and this account currently has over 530,000 followers. This number is crucial because Wu says this is a media outlet primarily with a Chinese team, but this account mainly publishes in English, and its follower count is already approaching the level of top-tier global crypto media. Of course, even established media outlets like CoinDesk, which have been operating for 12 years, only have around a million followers on Twitter.

In addition, Wu's English account is already one of the most influential blockchain media outlets. Not only does it publish content entirely in English, but in my opinion, it has become a frequently cited source of information by numerous international media outlets, major investors, and industry participants. Therefore, by "success," I mean influence in this sense. Mr. Wu, could you share how you think Wu's account has grown so rapidly over the past few years and gained industry trust? What factors do you believe have contributed to this attention and trust?

Colin: The growth of our English account has actually been quite "fantastical." As a Chinese team, many people want to create English platforms, whether they are media, content platforms, exchanges, or project teams. But very few actually succeed, especially content-driven platforms. Exchanges and project teams can drive growth through large capital investments or other means, but our pure content team relies mainly on the content itself.

There were several key factors that led to our initial success.

The first point is that many major news events were happening in China at the time, possibly related to the crackdown on illegal activities, policy support, and important meetings. We quickly wrote about these related news items. Our strength was our rapid release, which is related to my background as a reporter at a news agency. Our style was to pursue speed and conciseness while ensuring accuracy as much as possible. This style created a strange cycle in the Western market at the time—many people believed that the price of cryptocurrency would fluctuate as soon as our news was released.

In the cryptocurrency world, the influence of a media outlet or KOL often depends not on whether they actually affect the market, but on what people "believe" they will. This psychological expectation itself can trigger a market reaction. So we became that kind of person; many people felt our content might drive price fluctuations.

The second factor was somewhat accidental. When we were just starting out, CZ (Changpeng Zhao) already had a huge influence, but he didn't communicate with us beforehand and frequently retweeted our English content. He even publicly stated that we were the only Chinese media outlet he followed. Although we consistently maintained neutrality, and sometimes he unfollowed us for reporting negative news about Binance, only to later follow and retweet us again for positive coverage, none of that mattered. In the initial launch phase, CZ's retweets did indeed play a significant role in driving our growth.

However, I believe the most crucial point is the first one. This is similar to the rise of some influential media outlets in the past few years. For example, ChainNews had a significant influence on VC coins in its early days, and many people invested after reading its reports. This also includes familiar media outlets like Equation News and Lookonchain in the current cycle.

Of course, Lookonchain is slightly different, but what they have in common is that the market believes their content will influence prices. Even earlier platforms like Jinse Finance and CoinWorld, during the ICO era, primarily provided trading advice and recommendations. Therefore, I believe Wu Shuo's success is mainly due to these two factors.

Does the media drive up cryptocurrency prices: The mechanism by which information influences the market?

Liu Feng: I actually think there are several questions we can discuss in your introduction, as well as some particularly interesting phenomena. The first question is the relationship between media and cryptocurrency prices—is a media outlet that can drive cryptocurrency price fluctuations necessarily a good media outlet? Although you just mentioned that this phenomenon was a key factor driving product growth during the cold start phase for you. Another point is one of your important readers—your important audience, CZ. CZ is actually the founder of Binance, Changpeng Zhao, as everyone in the cryptocurrency circle usually calls him. He sometimes likes your reporting, but sometimes he doesn't, and he unfollows you frequently. This raises another question: as a media or information platform, do the preferences of our audience influence our judgment and content production?

I think Wu Shuo is a respectable media outlet. Besides the large audience you just mentioned—which is a sign of recognition—another point that impressed me is its speed. You also mentioned this, and I know you value both fairness and efficiency in your content. Furthermore, I think your personality is particularly well-suited for media work: you have a critical eye and can present content with a calm and collected attitude.

In today's program, I especially want to offer some friendly guidance at the beginning for listeners who are just entering the world of cryptocurrency. I'd also like to hear you talk about how, as a media professional, you find exclusive, fast-paced information when handling news. And how do you verify the credibility of a piece of information? Because for all readers, fast, accurate, and credible news should be the most basic requirement. This is actually the fundamental skill of our work. Lao Wu, would you like to start?

Colin: No problem, what Professor Liu said does touch upon the essence of news. The essence of news is to be both fast and accurate, but these two are often in conflict. In the cryptocurrency field, this contradiction is amplified even more. In some fields, such as the entertainment industry, accuracy may not be so important; while in traditional financial fields, speed may not be so crucial. But in the cryptocurrency world, the contradiction between speed and accuracy becomes very sharp. Because many investors will make investments based on the speed of your news, especially for short-term trading, if you publish incorrect information, the consequences will be very embarrassing.

We've seen many examples like this. For instance, a few days ago, A posted a message about Memecoin, but this news was later proven to be highly problematic. First, A cited a very minor source without any secondary verification; second, they didn't even specify the exact source. As a result, the story turned out to be fake, and many KOLs suffered losses as a result, starting to criticize A, saying they published fake news that caused everyone to lose money.

A's response was quite interesting: If we were in that situation, we would definitely apologize sincerely, because editors' salaries aren't high, and they work very hard. We hope everyone can understand if we occasionally make a mistake. But their attitude is, "When we report the news correctly, you make money off it, and no one thanks us. Why do you scold us for a small mistake?" This argument seems to have some merit. This actually leads to another topic: paywalls and whether news should be charged for.

Going back to your question, how do we usually verify the accuracy of news? I think the first key point is to recognize that the conflict between speed and accuracy is particularly acute in the crypto world. We all certainly want to do better, and we also hope that the community can be more tolerant of the media, especially today when the requirements for professionalism are increasingly high.

The second point concerns how to determine the accuracy of information sources. Frankly, cryptocurrency media often appears unprofessional in the eyes of traditional media professionals. For example, traditional media have basic reporting standards; an important exclusive story should be cross-verified by at least three independent sources, or at least two if the standard is lowered. However, in the cryptocurrency world, even these basic principles are often lacking. We frequently see stories where the source is merely a rumor, yet it's presented as official news.

From a reader's perspective, how can one find more accurate information? This question becomes more complex. You first need to ask yourself: do you want "accurate" information or "fast" information? Especially during this period, Memecoin is very popular, but Memecoin is not fundamentally based on tangible value; it represents an emotion.

Therefore, for Memecoin, the accuracy of information may not be important at all; what matters is speed. This is why KOLs are so popular now. People don't expect their information to be accurate, but as long as they are fast, they can potentially help you make money. Some KOLs will even post a message saying "Buy now," followed by "Sell now," and someone might make money in the time it takes for them to go back and forth. That's why their users find them useful.

But for us in the media, we face a dilemma: should we report vague and unclear news quickly, or prioritize accuracy over speed? I myself don't have a completely clear answer. But as far as Wu Shuo is concerned, we have always firmly leaned towards accuracy; it's our strength. Of course, I won't criticize others for pursuing speed, because for them, that other approach might be a way to survive.

Liu Feng: I feel like I failed miserably. Actually, I wanted to "trick" you into giving everyone some very practical tips, like how to get exclusive news—that requires making friends and getting to know people who truly understand the industry and have real expertise; or how to verify information—that requires knowing which sources are reliable. You see, Bloomberg news is definitely more trustworthy than "street gossip," right? I originally thought you could list ten or twenty credible sources, but you completely ignored me and instead posed a more complex question.

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

Colin: Yes, I think what you just said makes a lot of sense. Maybe I was a bit off-topic, because the audience for Web3 101 is probably broader, and they might not all understand the details I just mentioned. The more basic techniques you mentioned are also correct; it's definitely important to tell people what the most basic ways to make judgments are.

Liu Feng: It's alright, I believe the audience is very intelligent. The question you raised is actually deeper—when we read the media, are we doing it to know the truth, or to make money?

Colin: Yes, actually, the article you wrote five years ago was already very well written. From my perspective, I don't think there's anything to add.

The controversy over whether media can help users make money.

Liu Feng: After listening to what Professor Wu just said, I think we can further discuss a more complex issue: When we come to the cryptocurrency world, to Crypto, do we read news media to find the truth, or do we come to make money?

Colin: I think it varies from person to person. There are indeed big differences among users, and everyone has a different definition of "making money." For example, some people hope to earn a million, ten million, or even a hundred million; while others just want to earn 100 USDT or even 50 USDT a day. The needs of different groups are very different. For example, some traditional professionals may not read news to make money immediately, but some retail investors may be very keen to place orders based on the content you post, or even to open contracts with gambling elements. It really depends on the composition of the audience.

Liu Feng: I accept and agree with your answer. Let me put it more directly, Jack, you can answer that too. All three of us come from media backgrounds, so can we guarantee that the content we create is solely for the purpose of making money for our readers? I must admit, I can't do that. If people are listening to this podcast to make money, then I'm afraid I have no secrets to wealth to offer. I didn't found ChainNews because I thought I could definitely help others make money.

Colin: Yes, this actually reveals a very different set of values. Take Equation News, for example. They once posted a long tweet with a core argument: "Every piece of news I post is to help you make money." And going further, they want to make money from the news themselves first. Their mechanism might involve using bots to place orders in advance; the bots react very quickly, and then the news is published. So if you keep up with the news and buy early, you might also make money. Of course, they themselves will earn more. I don't know what Professor Liu thinks of this set of values.

Liu Feng: I agree with this product concept, and I would support it if such a product could actually be made. I think it's a very idealistic product form. However, I have some doubts about the sustainability of this product, which is something we can discuss further. I personally won't make moral judgments about this value system, nor do I want to label it as "good" or "bad." After all, in a highly financialized industry, "making money" is indeed a universally recognized benchmark. But what I question is whether it's realistic to consistently make money. I would put a question mark on that myself.

Jack: When I joined Crypto Media, it coincided with a very unique era—a time when narratives like metaverse, Web3.0, NFTs, and DeFi were all the rage, a phase that could get many traditional investors to buy in. It was completely different from the chaotic period of ICOs in 2014/2015, 2017/2018, and today's meme-driven era. Back then, many people came to Crypto Media because they found the industry's concepts novel.

Many emerging media outlets at the time were tasked with introducing new concepts and meeting people's needs for understanding and investment. For example, if I wanted to invest in this field, what did I need to know? What data should I pay attention to? What kind of analytical logic should I learn? This period was more knowledge- and concept-oriented. However, before the ICO era and after the Meme era, the industry leaned more towards "information trading," especially the so-called "news trading" model after "Equation News."

I vividly remember that during the ICO era, Mr. Wu's pronouncements were frequently cited by many overseas English media outlets. Information about ICO projects and trading platforms was often perceived as influencing market price fluctuations. Back then, the foundation of cryptocurrencies was quite weak, and in today's meme era, it seems little has been left, reduced to short-term PvP games or manipulation.

At this stage, the value of news media leans more towards serving transactions—on-chain data and market fluctuations become the main content of news flashes. Especially with the emergence of platforms like Lookonchain, which Mr. Wu just mentioned, or other Twitter accounts that track on-chain addresses, their appearance has changed the entire content structure of cryptocurrency media. This is also evident in the content proportions of many media flash reports, where the coverage is largely highly correlated with meme price fluctuations and on-chain address changes.

Liu Feng: But from what I've been listening to, you're all basically describing a phenomenon: what people like to do now is help users make money by providing transaction-related information. 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 yourself are a trader (P Xiaojiang). But if you are a media person, this actually contradicts the ethical principles of traditional media; in essence, it's "calling for trades."

The role of insight and subjective judgment in investment information

Liu Feng: So Colin, are you confident in answering this question? In other words, can you create content that guarantees everyone will make money?

Colin: Let me give you two small examples. These might seem like minor details. For instance, when USDC was involved in the Silicon Valley Bank collapse, the market panicked, and many people started selling USDC. I posted a comment on my Twitter at the time, and my assessment was: because USDC and Coinbase have a very high degree of synergy, if USDC really had problems, Coinbase would definitely step in, either by providing loans or by acquiring it directly.

Much later, I was having dinner with a friend who told me, "I decided not to sell USDC because I saw your tweet, and it really saved me a lot of money." Of course, I was thinking, "You didn't even share any of the money you saved with me, haha." But it's true, as it turned out, Coinbase did prepare billions of dollars in loans to support USDC and even considered acquiring it.

Of course, that tweet isn't news; it's just my personal judgment. Could you write it as a news article? Actually, no. Because it's just a speculation, it might be right, it might be wrong, and I'm about 70-80% sure.

Liu Feng: I would categorize this kind of content as "insight." It stems from your understanding and judgment of information, a subjective interpretation. Such judgments are often highly accurate, but inherently, they also have a probability of being wrong. Although your friend thanked you, from my perspective as a media professional, your tweet is essentially more like "investment advice," not a "news product" in the strict sense.

This is what I really want to emphasize: if we truly analyze the nature of information, on the one hand, it can be "facts"—clear, verifiable black-and-white content, which we can categorize as factual. But information can also be "opinions" or "insights," which are subjective and difficult to verify. It might seem right in hindsight, but it could also be wrong.

This kind of uncertain content occupies a place in many so-called "money-making effects" or "money-making opportunities" today. Some people make money 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 perspective of a media outlet that "takes facts as its core obligation," this subjective judgment cannot directly lead to the conclusion of "whether or not it is possible to make money."

If you're providing investment conclusions that are clearly recommendations, then that's more like what an investment advisor should be doing. In this case, we often see them citing reports from investment banks or research institutions in the media, where these institutions provide asset valuations, etc. I think this distinction makes the distinction quite clear.

Colin: Yes, I think your categorization is beyond question. This also brings us back to the essence of news. For a news story to be valid, it can't be like a personal judgment, requiring only 70%, 80%, or even 90% accuracy. A news story should ideally be 95% or even 100% accurate. In other words, if you're trying to make money by publishing news, it's very difficult.

Of course, as Jack just mentioned, tracking unusual activity on Memecoin or quickly publishing exchange announcements like "Equation News" might be one of the few ways to achieve this. But as Professor Liu just said, this kind of "Equation News" model doesn't seem to have long-term sustainability. What I'm trying to say is that it's extremely difficult for media outlets to become a channel for making money.

Liu Feng: Actually, some media outlets have indeed helped users make money, right?

Colin: Not entirely. I think a 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 any media outlet or any piece of information can make you money, that's a naive idea. I might have to dispel that naivety because the reality is often much more complex. I'd like to share my thoughts on this media model of "driving trading decisions with fast news and even on-chain data."

I believe that such strategies can indeed be effective in certain periods and at certain times. However, what truly makes people money is not the information itself, but an "investment strategy." For example, if you see a large amount of Bitcoin being deposited into exchanges, you can assume that this BTC may be intended for sale, potentially causing a short-term market decline.

The logic is simple; it's essentially a manifestation of a trading strategy. Similarly, why did people often say that information from "Fengshen Trading" was useful? Because for a long time, some cryptocurrencies, once listed on major exchanges like Korean exchanges, Binance, and Coinbase, could trigger price increases. This is based on the assumption that these exchanges can bring attention and liquidity, and this effect is especially pronounced in environments with poor market liquidity. Therefore, this is also a "short-term trading strategy."

Therefore, information platforms that provide "signaling factors" for such strategies seem to offer opportunities to make money. However, I believe that the strategy itself is the key, not the information itself.

If we broaden our perspective and look at the global financial markets, especially large hedge funds, they employ a variety of complex trading strategies and monitor and adjust countless variables and factors. Even so, no one dares to claim that a single factor can generate profits indefinitely. Therefore, what I'm trying to say is that if users are willing to utilize this type of information as part of their strategy, it's indeed possible to make money, which is a good thing. However, they must continuously examine their trading logic. I don't believe any successful hedge fund can completely avoid adjusting its strategy. Factors that work today may not work tomorrow. I think this assessment is valid.

Colin: I completely agree. Because in the crypto world, there are indeed many different types of people and different trading strategies, but the number of people who actually do short-term trading is actually quite limited.

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

Liu Feng: Yes, I'd like to delve a little deeper into this. At the end of last year, I picked up Soros's *The Alchemy of Finance* again because I suddenly realized how interesting this topic really is. I had discussed with friends a long time ago that there is a very strong "reflexivity" problem in the cryptocurrency market. If you've read Soros's book, you'll easily understand this concept.

Regarding the concept of "reflexivity," Soros introduced two very interesting concepts: one is "fallibility." He argues that almost all subjective viewpoints, even people's interpretations of phenomena and facts, are highly subjective and often wrong. This fallibility is ever-present and unavoidable.

"Reflexivity" refers to the phenomenon where certain judgments we believe to be facts, due to their widespread acceptance, actually drive their occurrence. This phenomenon is particularly evident in the cryptocurrency market, especially in price fluctuations. For example, when most people believe a trading strategy is effective, the appearance of a "factor" supporting this strategy will lead to a consensus that it will drive the price up or down. Thus, because everyone believes it, it actually affects the price—forming a "self-fulfilling prophecy."

This is particularly prevalent in the crypto market. This is because the market has several characteristics: assets often lack clear pricing standards, liquidity is relatively insufficient, and liquidity often determines price. Coupled with the extreme sensitivity of market participants to information, when a certain expectation is widely accepted and recognized, this "consensus" can, in turn, become reality. In other words, Soros's logic is actually very applicable to the cryptocurrency market.

Of course, how to "teach" this logic to others is a more complex matter, which I won't elaborate on here. But I hope that through this perspective, I can inspire truly intelligent listeners to think more deeply about this issue. This also responds to the phenomenon Lao Wu just mentioned: Why does a certain asset in the market start to fluctuate in price after you publish a news article? Why does this situation seem to repeat itself repeatedly? Is it possible that this is a "self-fulfilling prophecy" process?

I think this is an open question, and I believe there are many experienced and thoughtful people in our audience who can explore this topic further. We are certainly not experts in this area, but we have observed a phenomenon where certain news products or data platforms do seem to offer opportunities to make money.

So, is this phenomenon due to the inherent value of this information itself? Or, more accurately, is it truly sustainable? I personally have my doubts about this "sustainability." Because I believe that often, it might simply be that certain effective trading strategies are working at a particular stage.

On the other hand, I also want to say that this phenomenon can occur precisely because of a very strong "reflexivity" in the crypto market. If a thousand people rush into a scarce asset with very low liquidity, such as a MEME token, its price could indeed be driven sky-high. Then even more people see the price soaring and follow suit, thus forming an even stronger self-fulfilling cycle.

Therefore, the answer to this question is very complex, and this is precisely part of the complexity of the world, which we must learn to accept.

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

Colin: Professor Liu, you've surely noticed that many mainstream media outlets in the cryptocurrency space, stemming from our earlier discussion about whether media helps users make money, also face the dual dilemma of "public interest" and "profitability." However, it seems that mainstream media outlets aren't faring well. For example, CoinDesk was acquired by Bullish, and The Block was also acquired. Some Chinese-language media outlets have either been acquired or are seeking to be acquired. Why has this become a trend? Don't you find it somewhat tragic?

Liu Feng: To put it more diplomatically, it's about "how to define the word 'bad'." In my view, "bad" can have two levels: one is being completely unable to survive, such as not being able to pay salaries; the other is being alive but no longer having influence or dignity. But I believe this isn't just the current state of cryptocurrency media; it's the state faced by all "traditional media" globally: declining and struggling.

However, if we look at it from a different perspective, what exactly is media? Do you think Douyin and Xiaohongshu are media? These new media formats are actually among the most profitable business models in the world. Therefore, the decline of traditional media is an irreversible fact, and there's no need to argue about it anymore.

However, I want to emphasize that I don't believe these "traditional media outlets" are entirely without value. They may not be particularly profitable, but I believe they remain some of the most prestigious professions in the world. You'll find that some of the world's wealthiest tycoons, once they've amassed enough wealth, particularly enjoy acquiring reputable traditional media outlets, such as Bezos. This illustrates that media, to some extent, remains a symbol of status or public influence.

Even though CoinDesk and The Block's businesses don't look so good right now, they are still doing important and positive work. CoinDesk once triggered a chain reaction from FTX with a report, and recently conducted an in-depth investigation into Movement Labs, exposing many industry scandals.

Colin: Yes, I think this also shows that when a media outlet has a relatively "kind" financial backer or acquirer, it can be more relaxed and more professional in its reporting.

Liu Feng: I'm not sure if their backers are "kind," but I think their professionalism is still there. I also can't judge whether they can maintain the last vestige of dignity in the newsroom in the future, but at least for now, CoinDesk's reporting standards can still rival many traditional financial media outlets.

Of course, many people might criticize them, saying they don't understand encryption, don't know much about the industry, and so on. I don't think those things are important. What I value more is that their starting point isn't for traffic or to make money for everyone, but to genuinely tell people inside and outside the industry some facts and truths they believe are important. I think that's the value of media.

So if someone thinks, "This media outlet can't help me make money, so it has no value and shouldn't exist," I think that's the biggest tragedy.

Liu Feng: Then we can extend this topic further. Do you think these cryptocurrency media outlets are still trustworthy?

Colin: I'll address this from several perspectives. From Wu Shuo's point of view, we certainly aspire to be a trustworthy media outlet. But aspirations alone aren't enough; ultimately, we must return to the initial question—can we achieve both speed and accuracy? This is an extremely difficult task. Furthermore, you need a certain level of profitability to maintain a high-standard team. You can't simply demand that editors meet standards; you also need to provide them with sufficient support.

As for the media in the crypto industry as a whole, I think there has been progress. For example, some early media outlets had relatively low credibility.

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

Colin: Yes. Some new media outlets tried to enter the market in the last cycle, but most disappeared after only a month. Now, after the shakeout, what remains are mostly established media outlets that have been around for many years, both in the English and Chinese-speaking worlds. These remaining media outlets still uphold some basic values. I think they are generally quite trustworthy.

Colin: But if we discuss this more deeply, the standard of "trustworthiness" is actually complex for users. Everyone has a different understanding of "trustworthiness." Some people want to see information that can make money, while others want information that is fast enough. So, "trustworthiness" can actually be interpreted from multiple perspectives.

Liu Feng: Yes, the most popular saying is, "Trustworthiness is a spectrum," but everyone stands at a different point on that spectrum. We all live in our own "information cocoons."

The conflict between opinion leaders and the media is intensifying, and the information war is escalating.

Colin: Returning to this question, I'd like to ask Professor Liu about a phenomenon that has also puzzled me. This era is different from the past. The media now exists on a more equal, or even weaker, platform with KOLs and even some "powerful figures." In the past, the media was very powerful and had the ability to scrutinize and challenge these people, but now these people control more followers and have greater influence over public opinion.

I've recently noticed a phenomenon: for example, with the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg continuously reporting on the relationship between Binance and Trump, or Trump family projects, Binance's, or rather CZ's, strategy is to neither respond nor deny, but to attack the media itself. This tactic is very similar to Trump's style—directly accusing the Wall Street Journal of being paid to smear him, while avoiding mentioning some key information. This phenomenon is becoming increasingly common. Look at Trump, Musk, and CZ; when faced with unwanted reporting, their first reaction is often to stigmatize the media. I wonder what your opinion is?

Liu Feng: I must say, this behavior is extremely undignified. It is the media's duty to ask questions; and the person being questioned has the freedom to respond or refuse to answer, but should not be treated with aggression. We originally hoped to live in a dignified world, but it seems that dignified things are slowly disappearing.

The current public discussion has devolved from addressing the issues themselves into a state of mutual attacks and mudslinging, causing the discussion to stray from its core. I have indeed observed that traditional media does have a bias against the crypto industry, which is a fact. However, if we evaluate the media and these public figures, such as Changpeng Zhao and Trump, on a "credibility spectrum"—setting aside emotions and stances—we can actually determine in our minds who belongs to which quadrant.

Having worked in corporate reputation management, I know that the core of "reputation" is building credibility. But in this day and age, it seems like everyone doesn't care about "credibility" at all, only about "influence." But is influence really just about generating traffic?

Colin: Yes, that's my confusion too. People don't seem to care as much about the standard of "trustworthiness" anymore. If you look at many KOLs for MEME coins, they may have issued worthless coins, promoted them, or even scammed investors in the past, but many people still believe in them and even trust them a lot because some people have indeed made money through them.

Liu Feng: Yes, we must accept this reality: the world today is rife with conflict, mutual understanding is becoming increasingly difficult, and many previously shared values are collapsing. Each group is building its own "trust system," and it's difficult to have a unified standard for "what is trustworthy." For example, Trump's supporters genuinely believe everything he says, and they are willing to fight 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, to a world where we can discuss and seek trust. Although we often talk about "trustlessness" in the crypto world, it's precisely because there's no institutionalized trust that the credibility of individuals or institutions that can be established becomes even more important. This is also a kind of scarce value.

Colin: This is also related to the current information recommendation mechanism, right? For example, Twitter particularly encourages short, fast, and direct forms of expression.

Liu Feng: I believe that the recommendation mechanism is just a tool; the real problem lies in the underlying reward mechanism. In human society, why are we willing to listen to someone? One possibility is that they speak loudly, and another is that they have prestige and are trustworthy.

In traditional societies, we are taught to be "trustworthy," because this earns you the trust of others and opens doors to opportunities—a positive incentive. But in today's online world, everything is monetized and driven by traffic, especially on social media platforms, where monetizing traffic has become the most direct method.

This is why so many self-media outlets and content creators are willing to distort facts and create sensationalism to attract attention. It's not that the recommendation mechanism is wrong, but that the recommendation mechanism drives traffic, and traffic brings revenue. This entire mechanism has changed the social order that was originally centered on "reputation." Now, reputation is worthless, but traffic is valuable. So I think the problem isn't with the tool itself, but with the "incentive structure" we've set for this tool. That should be the logic.

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

Colin: I think there are some interesting phenomena right now. For example, have you seen the recently popular "Kaito"? It ranks KOLs, and recently even launched lists for Chinese and Korean language regions. This list makes the monetization of traffic more blatant. Every day, you can see KOLs showing off their ranking, which big accounts followed or retweeted them, and how many points the system added. It directly digitizes and publicizes the monetization of traffic, turning it into a very powerful "traffic command stick."

Liu Feng: Well, I don't know much about Kaito's ranking algorithm, but I think this is crucial. Different algorithms have their own factors, and whoever controls these factors can influence the results—it's the same logic as Google SEO back in the day. We used to see some spam websites or gambling websites with excellent SEO, ranking high, but the content you clicked on wasn't what you wanted. That's a game between humans and machines. If Kaito discloses its algorithm, it will inevitably be manipulated; if it doesn't, it becomes a black box operation, making it difficult to judge the value of the rankings.

Especially if, as you say, posting ads can affect rankings, then that's a big problem. Does someone ranking high because they post a lot of ads mean people like their content? I don't think readers come here to "appreciate ads."

Colin: So this has attracted a lot of criticism. Many people say that Kaito has made Twitter’s feed “dirty” with ads everywhere.

Liu Feng: My view on this criticism is that if you feel your information flow is polluted, then you need to actively purify your own information flow. Everyone has a responsibility to choose what they want to pay attention to and what they want to filter. If everyone can self-disciplinedly clean up their own information flow, this model will naturally be abandoned. We cannot completely push the responsibility onto the platform or the algorithm.

Colin: The reality isn't that extreme. Many KOLs actually have a mix of content: 70% is practical information, and 30% is advertising. Many users say they might not like the 30% of ads, but they don't want to mute the entire account for that part of the content.

Liu Feng: This is where the real complexity lies. The information world is never black and white. Even the content sources we trust may contain "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.

My concern is that future information pollution won't be the chaotic mess we see today, but rather something more insidious—a deep blend of true and false information, making it difficult to distinguish, directly impacting our judgment, knowledge base, and decision-making abilities. But precisely because of this, "trustworthy people" and "trustworthy information nodes" will become even scarcer and more important at that time. We might then redefine the value of "reputation."

Colin: I think we can go back to a very core question you raised at the beginning—many Web3 101 readers aren't long-term cryptocurrency enthusiasts, so how do they find more reliable sources of information? I've also reflected on that. Actually, I think your article from a few years ago is already a classic; everyone can find it and 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 degree of skepticism. Let's not talk about making money yet, but just how to judge whether information is reliable. Especially with short, extreme pieces of information, the more so, the more skepticism is needed.

Second, once doubts arise, it's essential to verify the source of the information. Two areas have seen particularly significant changes in recent years: the development of AI and the substantial increase in the influence of Twitter and KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders).

There are several ways to approach information verification. For example, you can use AI to assist in the judgment—not to completely trust it, but at least as a supplementary tool. Additionally, you can search on Twitter to see if the message has been retweeted or commented on by top KOLs.

Regarding KOLs, although many people have a negative connotation for the term, I think it's important to distinguish between different types. Tools like Kaito, which rank KOLs, actually use an AI-based algorithm to build their "top list"—a system based on mutual following and reposting. This logic is actually quite sound.

Here's another simple tip: If you see an account post a news item that you think is worth following, you can click on their profile. Twitter has a feature that shows how many of the people you follow also follow that account. If none of the accounts you trust follow this person, they are likely not a reliable source of information. If many of the people you follow also follow them, then their credibility is a plus.

Of course, these methods are only supplementary. In this era of information overload, judging the "truthfulness of information" requires a more complex and comprehensive way of thinking, rather than a simple black-and-white approach.

Therefore, I would like to summarize a few points in conclusion:

1. If you are someone who values "authenticity" and "trustworthiness" (in reality, many people don't), you must cultivate a strong sense of skepticism and critical thinking. For example, in our Wu's Telegram group, there's a pinned rule: assume all messages you see on Telegram are scams at first, and then gradually filter out the non-scams. This mindset is actually very suitable for all information channels.

2. It can flexibly utilize AI tools, social graph analysis tools, and data products such as Kaito to build its own information verification network and form a more efficient identification mechanism.

Liu Feng: Thank you so much for your summary, haha. I think you've hit the nail on the head. Actually, many of the information sources and channels I used to recommend have stopped updating. This is a sad thing about the crypto world: once everyone makes money, nobody takes creating content seriously anymore.

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

Liu Feng: I used to really enjoy newsletters and spent a lot of time on them. Newsletters may not be very popular in the Chinese-speaking world, but they are a very mainstream and highly professional information product in the English-speaking world. Good newsletter authors often have a very broad ability to gather information and can carefully organize and curate important information, making them very valuable. While Twitter now supports long articles, most of the content is still geared towards driving traffic.

Comparatively, I now prefer English podcasts; a lot of truly insightful content actually comes from podcasts. I feel that current long articles are actually inferior to AI-generated content. Many long articles don't deserve their length and are easily misled by intimidating charts and logic. In contrast, content conveyed through authentic language is more reliable.

Regarding social graph analytics tools, I used to use a fantastic product developed by a European developer. It used Twitter following, retweeting, and liking behavior to determine which accounts were more influential, and its effectiveness far surpassed that of popular Kaito-like products. However, this project was ultimately canceled due to Twitter's API policy change. Many similar tools that emerged later unfortunately distorted information due to the inclusion of incentive mechanisms. Therefore, I manage my feed very carefully, avoiding indiscriminately following accounts and maintaining the quality of information.

Colin Wu: Our Wu Talk account never follows others for advertising partnerships; we adhere to this principle very strictly. My personal account sometimes proactively follows people with few followers but insightful content to help them get started, and even shares and recommends their posts. This kind of behavior can actually be very helpful for their growth.

Liu Feng: Truly valuable accounts often have few followers, perhaps only a thousand or two, but their content is extremely valuable. Many KOLs with tens or hundreds of thousands of followers are actually more worthy of our attention. Finding these small but high-quality information sources is crucial, especially in the crypto space. You can't always rely on what others feed you; you must learn to discern information for yourself.

For example, when we first started ChainNews in 2018, we hired many interns. One task was to have them join as many cryptocurrency-related WeChat groups as possible within a week. One particularly outgoing female intern joined 200 groups, only to find they were all pyramid scheme groups. Other interns joined a maximum of 10 groups, and the quality of those groups was also low. This shows that without a good entry point, it's really difficult to enter the cryptocurrency world. Therefore, we always emphasize mentorship within the team, adding newcomers to groups we deem valuable, introducing them to who is who and who is trustworthy, thereby helping them quickly build a trust network.

Colin Wu: I completely agree with your point. I've also joined some private groups to learn more. Although I can't participate in short-term trading professionally, I've definitely felt that the quality of information in the core groups is far superior to that from public channels. The structure of the WeChat groups also aligns with the flat community characteristics of crypto.

Liu Feng: Yes, the cryptocurrency world is flat and open, giving everyone a voice. Many insightful opinion leaders have risen from obscurity. The allure of crypto lies in finding these individuals and recognizing the value of their content. Of course, vigilance is crucial to avoid being scammed.

Easter Egg

Web3 101 invited this episode's hosts and guests to recommend some reliable cryptocurrency information sources for listeners as a "bonus" for this episode:

Colin Wu's recommendation

Basic knowledge:

- Bitcoin white paper;

- Vitalik's Twitter and personal blog;

- "BTC Study" established by A-Jian

- SlowMist Dark Forest Handbook

Liu Feng's recommendation

Introductory reading materials

Bitcoin White Paper

https://bitcoin.org/files/bitcoin-paper/bitcoin_zh_cn.pdf

- "The Sovereign Individual" by William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson (Chinese translations are readily available online)

- "Mastering Bitcoin" by Andreas Antonopoulos (A Chinese translation team can be easily found online)

- A Self-Help Manual for the Dark Forest of Blockchain by Yu Xian @ SlowMist Security Team

https://github.com/slowmist/Blockchain-dark-forest-selfguard-handbook/blob/main/README_CN.md

news

- Coindesk

- The Block

Blockworks

- One Crypto Feed (Telegram channel: t.me/onecryptofeed) aggregates important news.

- Delphi Reads (Telegram channel: https://t.me/DelphiDigitalAlerts)

Newsletter

- a16z crypto https://a16zcrypto.substack.com/

- Chainfeeds https://substack.chainfeeds.xyz/

- Axios Crypto https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-crypto

- OurNetwork https://www.ournetwork.xyz/

- The Breakdown https://mail.blockworks.com/subscribe?ref=0Gwl3XbESB

- Rekt https://rekt.news/

Jack's Recommendation

On-chain data statistics

- Custom on-chain data scraping and statistics: Dune Analytics

- Inter-chain fund flow data: Artemis

Market data

- Market prices: CoinGecko, CoinMarketcap

-Contract Market Fee Status: CoinGlass

-Comprehensive market data: Glassnode

Protocol & Application Data Analysis

-DeFi Event: DeFiLlama

-Project Revenue Status: Token Terminal

- Token Unlock Status: Token Unlocks

On-chain address tracking

-Arkham

-Nansen

-DeBank

Block Explorer

Ethereum Network: Etherscan

-Solana Network: Solana FM

Paid Industry Report

-Messari

-Blockwork Research

The mother of the ASTEROID narrative protagonist: Her social media account was hacked and no encrypted content was posted.

Popular Articles