Just now I scrolled through CreatorPad again, that feeling is too familiar - not awkward, but not particularly lively, yet the scores seem to ignore me.
At first, I doubted whether the system had a bug, but then I paused to think and suddenly understood that it might not be that my writing is poor, but rather that the scoring rules have quietly changed. Some changes won't be loudly announced; they simply take away the old rules, while you are still struggling in the same place.
1. The points you see now are not about how complete your writing is, but whether anyone is willing to stay and chat.
In this adjustment of CreatorPad's weighting, everyone remembers that interaction is more important, but I think what it truly filters out is the kind of content that is well-written, where after reading, others just want to like and leave. It's not because the writing is poor, but because it doesn't leave space for participation. The current points are really asking: Did you pull the readers into the same scene, making them unable to resist adding a comment, asking a question, or even rebutting? It no longer simply rewards liveliness but rewards genuine dialogue.
2. On-chain does not care how you speak, it only looks at whether you have actually done it.
When I turned off the plaza to look at on-chain data, I actually felt a lot calmer. It wasn't the excitement brought by the hype, but a solid feeling that the machine was continuously operating. Transactions are running, addresses are increasing, no one is applauding, but it’s right there. The place that Plasma made me look at a few more times is right here—not just one phrase 'zero Gas' that is so attractive, but it clearly writes out the mechanism, customized Gas tokens, and paymaster maintained by the protocol.
When I first saw it, I was actually skeptical. I stared at the transaction confirmation page for two seconds, wondering who was really paying this fee. Later, after reviewing the documents and FAQs, I confirmed there was no markup, and slowly accepted it. What truly moves people is not the cheapness, but that it cleanly extracts the payment behavior from the noise of transaction fees. With less friction, the real behavior can be seen more clearly, and the receipt is clean.
3. The unlocking of 1/25 is not a conclusion; it is a public question.
Now no one can avoid 1/25; 88.89M XPL is about to unlock. I am not fond of saying it must crash, nor do I believe in the phrase that bad news is all out. To me, this is more like a public stress test. What is being tested is not the price, but a few more specific things: will the on-chain behavior visibly deform after unlocking, is the flow of stablecoins a temporary fluctuation or a continuous exit, and is the selling pressure a one-time release or a slow leak.
The real danger has never been a single fluctuation, but when the on-chain receipt starts to lose its voice. If a project cannot withstand verification, it has actually lost before unlocking.
4. I do not bet on direction; I only focus on three things.
During this time, my judgment has been quite simple: observe whether the trading and new addresses continue to weaken before and after on-chain unlocking, check if there are unreasonable distortions in the fee structure, and see if the content returns to a reproducible and questionable level. If none of these three are broken, I can wait for price fluctuations; if they are broken, I would rather admit I was wrong than stubbornly resist the emotions.
Some things are far more important than being lively. Points record attention, on-chain records behavior, and prices record expectations. The three rarely align completely, but at least you need to know whose words you are listening to.
Finally, I want to ask everyone a question, no need to rush to answer: After 1/25, what do you want to see more?
Is it the attitude given by the price, or is it the on-chain receipt that is still quietly breathing?
