nikita vs infofi: what really just happened
tldr: x just nuked “infofi” from orbit. @nikitabier (head of product at x) banned apps that reward people for posting here. APIs cut. tokens dumped. founders coping. everyone else confused.
we jumped on a space right after it dropped. here’s the breakdown:
what nikita actually did
nikita’s post was simple:
x will no longer allow apps that pay users to post (aka “infofi”).
too much ai slop & reply spam.
api access revoked. your feed should improve soon.
overnight, this kills the core of most infofi platforms (in theory):
no api = no tracking posts
no tracking = no automatic rewards
no automatic rewards = no scaled campaigns
tokens reacted instantly:
kaito down
wallchain NFTs down
other “pay-for-post” plays down
kaito announced it’s sunsetting yaps. cookie said they’re sunsetting snaps. everyone rushing to say “we’re actually a studio / infra / marketing agency now”
head of product at X just literally suggesting competitors to everyone. bold.
the official story: “infofi = spam”
x’s line is clear:
infofi → rewards for posting → bots & low-effort replies → bad user experience
they point at:
ai slop
one-word reply spam
copy-paste behavior
fake engagement behaviors
from x’s view, infofi poured gas on that fire.
so the story is:
kill infofi → no more incentives → spam disappears → everyone wins.
nice theory. but reality is messier
the real problem wasn’t just infofi
i said it on the space and i’ll say it here:
there is no infofi on youtube.
no infofi on tiktok.
no infofi on instagram.
they’re all drowning in ai slop anyway.
so no, infofi didn’t create low-effort content. it just made it more visible in one corner of the internet that already rewards engagement over quality.
and on x specifically, a huge chunk of the spam came from x’s own monetization:
ad rev share based on impressions
creators chasing views at any cost
ragebait, reply spam, outrage farms
that’s not an infofi artifact. that’s x’s incentive design.
also: most infofi platforms were heading towards a different direction by cutting out replies and slashing down on engagement groups and spam and the situation looked much better than 8 months ago.
so when we say:
“this will fix spam”
i really doubt it. maybe we see a small improvement for a bit. but if x keeps rewarding dumb engagement, something else will replace the infofi meta and the problem they think they're solving won't go away
why x really cares: ad money and control (maybe?)
here’s the part nobody wants to say out loud.
infofi was starting to compete with x’s ad business.
projects had two options:
pay x directly (ads, promotions)
pay creators through infofi platforms
every dollar that went to “yappers” and campaign platforms was a dollar not going through x’s pipes.
and because infofi scaled, it became visible. brands could:
set a budget
launch a campaign
reach thousands of accounts
bypass traditional ads
i said this live:
this isn’t just about “bots”. this is x telling big spenders:
“you want distribution? buy it from us, not from third parties.”
infofi didn’t just create noise. it threatened the ad monopolies. when something is both noisy and competing for your revenue, it gets killed fast.
what this means for creators
if you were making money through infofi campaigns, this hurts. no sugarcoating it.
for a lot of small accounts, it was the first time they could:
earn from an early stage
get noticed
get paid in a semi-structured way
that chapter is closed. now what?
some good news:
brands still need distribution
they still don’t want to pay for fake giveaways
they still prefer multiple smaller, real creators who actually show up
one take from the space i fully agree with:
this could push more projects to work with actual creators instead of faceless farmer networks.
there’s now more room for:
direct deals
smaller “pods” of creators
long-term partnerships, not one-off post farms
and yes, it means more work:
building your own audience
writing better
showing up daily
diversifying monetization (newsletters, subs, brand deals, other platforms)
no more easy-mode “press start to earn”. but if you’re playing the long game, that doesn't matter. the people who were only here for quick payouts will leave. the ones who stay will have more room.
what this means for infofi platforms
for founders, this must be brutal.
your main feature just got deleted by someone else’s policy.
your choices now:
pivot into tools: analytics, dashboards, studio products
move to other platforms (threads, bluesky, whatever)
go more manual: less “api farm”, more “agency + human curation”
or die quietly
lesson here is old but true:
"if your core product depends entirely on someone else’s api, you’re a tenant, not an owner" @banditxbt said something like this on the space today
infofi v1 was built on rented land. the landlord just changed the lock.
what this means for projects and marketers
your playbook has to change too.
no more:
buying 300 copy-paste tweets
pretending that equals “community”
using mindless farming as proof of demand
new reality:
find 10–50 creators who actually care
pay them fairly
let them use their own voice
build campaigns with real feedback loops, not just “number go up”
also: diversify.
ct is home base, but you can’t have:
single-platform dependency
single-meta dependency
single-tool dependency
this week was a reminder that any one lever can disappear overnight.
so… is this the end of infofi?
no. it’s the end of this version of it.
x struck down one specific form:
pay-for-post, api-driven, mass-farmed, low-friction campaigns.
the idea behind infofi – rewarding people for spreading information – isn’t going away. it will:
move chains
move platforms
move formats
come back with better filters and clearer rules
and that’s the part i don’t want people to forget:
infofi was the most egalitarian thing to ever happen on ct.
yeah, it surfaced some loud farmers.
but it also let real creators in nigeria, vietnam, india, bangladesh, and everywhere else feed their families for the first time with their voice.
this was never just about slop, or bots, or even the money.
it was about class.
who “deserves” to get paid for their influence.
who “deserves” to sit at the table.
who gets called “farmer” vs “creator” vs “thought leader”.
they didn’t mind incentives.
they minded you being allowed into the game.
my plan for 2026 remains the same tho:
write better
stay honest
protect creators when i can
keep talking about this stuff even when it’s uncomfortable
if you’re reading this, you’re probably one of the few people who stayed through all of it. you’re early to whatever comes next.
