FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

Alright

InfoFi? ACM? KOLs? Let’s settle this.

Everyone’s tryna “build mindshare.” But here’s the catch: awareness ≠ attention ≠ retention. So if your whole strategy is just farming likes with AI threads or praying for a quote tweet from some KOL… girl. Be serious.

In 2025, brand awareness comes in three main flavors:

• InfoFi – say something smart enough, and maybe people care.

• ACM – post if you want, but only token holders, stakers, and you know actual crypto users

• get paid.

• KOLs – slap your logo on someone else’s face and hope it converts.

They all work (kinda). But not the same way. Not for the same goals. And definitely not with the same outcome.

Let’s unpack.

InfoFi technically did its job (But that wasn’t enough)

Let’s be fair, InfoFi worked.

For brand awareness, it did exactly what it was designed to do.

Campaigns like Kaito’s YAPs or Cookie Snaps filled the timeline with explainers, memes, visuals, and threads. Projects that barely had SEO got discoverability. Users learned what they were buying into (kind of). It made noise.

If your KPI is “number of eyeballs who now know my name,” InfoFi delivered.

For example, from one of the cookie Snaps campaigns, mindshare jumped from 0.02% to over 2.1% in just a few days, a coordinated 8,200%+ surge in visibility. (See Graph 1: Mindshare Growth)

As you can see, it did its job fantastically. 

However, we need to know the difference:  Awareness ≠ conversion. Awareness ≠ retention.

InfoFi got people in the room.

But it did nothing to get them to stay.

Why it breaks down long term:

• No emotional tie: Users post to earn points, not because they care.

• No capital on the line: You can farm content all week and dump the moment a token hits the market.

• Well, farming.

• No downstream funnel: Once someone reads a thread, then what? There’s no follow-up mechanism baked into the format.

Most InfoFi campaigns see sharp engagement drop-offs after the leaderboard closes or TGE hits.

That’s because behavioral incentives weren’t aligned.

Users were incentivized to farm attention, not belief.

Without capital risk, there’s no loss aversion. And without loss aversion, there’s no real retention.

ACM, Awareness with Built-In Alignment

InfoFi walked. ACM said “cool idea, but let’s not reward clowns.”:
It’s a full-on incentive design upgrade. A mechanism that turns awareness into actual alignment, structurally, not just spiritually.

And honestly for something that did not exist a week ago, it definitely made some headlines with 1.66M impressions ( on the day of the writing) 

In InfoFi, everyone’s just shouting to win a bag.
In ACM , basically you can’t win unless you’re locked in with your wallet.

You post? Cool.
You stake, invest, or use the product? Now we’re talking.

• Your SNAPS = social attention.

• Your cSNAPS = attention weighted by capital conviction.

You can read more about ACM here:

Why that matters analytically:

1. It rewires the funnel

ACM turns the awareness funnel inside out.

In ACM, the people who post most often are already committed.
You’re amplifying people already inside the tent.

They’re not farming.
They’re signaling belief.

2. It solves the quality problem

ACM forces users to post like their money depends on it, because it does.

That creates a quality filter:

• Spam gets deprioritized.

• Lazy takes don’t perform.

• Real insight rises, because it’s coming from real stakeholders.

You don’t need to moderate content manually.
The incentive structure self-regulates the feed. The capital commitment triggers the endowment effect. You value what you own. You hold longer. You post better. You care.

3. It creates financial feedback loops

The moment someone invests, they become a stakeholder in your narrative.
Every retweet becomes self-interested signal boosting.
Every thread becomes a mini marketing asset, funded by the user, not the brand.

You’ve created a system where your investors are your marketers, and the rewards scale with performance and conviction.

TL;DR

Interested in Cookie Snaps? Fill out this form and our BD team will reach out shortly.

KOLs: maybe not a stand-alone strategy. Definitely lever.

Let’s talk about the oldest play in the book: KOLs.

KOLs still matter. They always will. BUTTTTT
KOLs are not a campaign. KOLs are distribution.

What they’re good at:

• Kicking things off: A single tweet from a trusted creator can kickstart an entire wave.

• Injecting credibility: If the messenger fits the audience, trust scales instantly.

• Speedrunning awareness: You can reach 200k people in 6 seconds.

• Spread your narrative: not necessarily by promoting your brand directly, but by raising awareness around the topic or issue that matters to you.

But they’re not built for follow-through:

• Once the post fades, so does the attention.

• Their audience isn't always your user base.

• Most of them aren’t product users, they’re broadcasters.

Best use? KOLs to spark the flame. ACM + InfoFi to keep it burning.

Red flag: If your entire awareness plan is “get a KOL to post,” you're not building a brand. You’re borrowing one.

Add: campaign data on engagement/conversion rates from KOL-only campaigns vs. KOL+ACM or KOL+UGC/InfoFi hybrid models.

Sooooo 

InfoFi = technically solid for awareness, but not sustainable on its own.

ACM = fixes InfoFi’s flaws by tying attention to capital, retention, and belief.

KOLs = valuable distribution, but must be paired with better mechanics.

Clout is cheap. Conviction is rare. And in 2025, only one gets rewarded.

Got questions? Feedback? You know where to find us 📞—we’re here to help you get organized, even if we’re still figuring out our own lives.

Until next lesson,

stay cookish. 🍪