What happened? X announced it will no longer allow apps that reward users for posting (the “InfoFi” / “post-to-earn” model), citing a surge in AI-generated “slop” and reply spam. X says it has already revoked API access for these apps, meaning affected projects may lose the ability to track posts, verify engagement, and run reward mechanics at scale.
X’s decision to cut off “InfoFi” apps that pay users for posting is being sold as a straightforward cleanup of AI slop and reply spam — but the market fallout suggests something bigger is at play. By revoking Enterprise API access, the platform didn’t just change the rules for a niche growth tactic; it exposed how much of crypto’s “attention economy” still depends on a single, centralized gatekeeper that can shut down an entire incentive model overnight.
Multiple InfoFi projects saw their tokens slide after X said it is cutting off apps that “pay for posts” by revoking developer API access.
Nikita Bier, X’s head of product, said the platform is “revising” its developer API policies and “will no longer allow apps that reward users for posting on X,” arguing the model has produced “a tremendous amount of AI slop & reply spam.” X has “revoked API access from these apps,” he wrote, adding that timelines should improve once bots realize “they’re not getting paid anymore.”
The announcement quickly rippled through a corner of crypto that built growth loops around “post-to-earn” leaderboards and on-platform engagement scoring. Decrypt reported that Kaito — a project that became closely associated with the InfoFi label — saw its token fall more than 15% within about 30 minutes after Bier’s post, with other InfoFi-linked tokens such as Cookie DAO and Loud also dropping over the same window.
A platform policy shift that functions like a kill switch
While X framed the decision as anti-spam hygiene, the operational impact on InfoFi-style apps is structural. Many products rely on X’s APIs to (1) read posts and replies at scale, (2) measure engagement, and (3) reconcile rewards that are distributed off-platform (often via crypto tokens or points systems later redeemable for allocations).
When API access is revoked, projects can lose the ability to verify whether a user posted, whether a post met eligibility rules, or whether engagement was real — undermining the measurement layer that keeps incentive programs from devolving into fraud. In practice, X didn’t just change pricing or terms. It removed the data access that makes these apps function as automated systems.
Bier said the ban wasn’t about replacing the model with higher-priced access. “They were already paying us millions for Enterprise API access. We don’t want it,” he wrote, rejecting the idea that InfoFi could remain if it paid more.
Cookie: “Snaps were hugely dependent on the X Enterprise API”
Cookie, a project that has run creator campaigns and “mindshare” programs, said the crackdown hits one part of its product suite but leaves other offerings intact.
In an email interview with AlexaBlockchain, Cookie InfoFi platform CMO Krystyna Kozak-Kornacka said the company’s Snaps product was the most exposed to X’s data access:
“Snaps were hugely dependent on the X Enterprise API, but all our other products remain unaffected. We’ve been an X Enterprise API client for a little over 6 months, but our products, such as Cookie3 Analytics and KOL Intelligence, have been on the market for way over a year, which in itself is a testament to the parts of the business that have remained unaffected.”
Asked about contingency plans — whether Cookie would pivot to Threads, Bluesky, crypto-native social networks, or an onchain attention graph — Kozak-Kornacka described a product refocus that broadens data sources beyond X:
“Our plan is to get back to what we do best: indexing, interpreting, and visualising onchain and social data, so both projects and individual traders can make informed decisions about their actions. With Cookie Pro, which is a new product set to launch in Q1 2026, we’ve indexed beyond CT to Crypto YouTube as well. This new tool is way more granular than what we offer in the free cookie, fun version at the moment, providing an in-depth understanding of the types of creators, their influence on the charts, and with Cookie Deep Research aggregating the most important project and sector news to evaluate their market impact. With Cookie Pro, businesses will run their, traders and investors will get a fuller picture when making decisions, while creators will get a immediate and detailed feedback loop on their performance.”
Incentives, “mercenary engagement,” and anti-spam defenses
A central criticism of InfoFi has been that it “financializes spam” — turning attention into a commodity that is easiest to farm with bots, repetitive replies, and templated content. X explicitly cited that dynamic in its policy change.
Kozak-Kornacka pushed back on the idea that incentives inevitably drive automated spam, saying Cookie attempted to engineer toward higher-quality participation — and claims it penalized obvious farming:
“It was a mix of both, but since the launch of capital mindshare campaigns, where using the product and deploying capital was needed to earn mindshare, conversion into real users increased. Almanak is a good example of how Snaps can bring real users. During its Snaps campaign, Almanak achieved over $35M in TVL (a 15x increase), while $5M in deposits were made directly via Snaps referrals.”
“When it comes to automated activity in Snaps, i.e. bots or AI Slop, we were never allowing it and had very sophisticated algorithms that detected spam, slop, and farming (aka posting too much about InfoFi). All such behaviour was heavily penalised in Snaps and slashed.”
On anti-spam controls, she said Cookie used pattern analysis rather than identity verification tools such as proof-of-personhood:
“Yes, our ani-farming, anti-slop algorithm was looking at users’ profiles and engagement patterns in general. Therefore, how much mindshare was earned was always dependent on whether the author of the post was showing natural engagement patterns vs farming circles, whether they had a healthy ratio of non-InfoFi to InfoFi content, or whether their post is novel and non-AI written.”
On whether InfoFi can produce information value without becoming a spam engine, she argued the sector was improving, but hadn’t had enough time to mature:
“With the right measures and algorithms, spam and slop would eventually be pushed out. But the industry just wasn’t mature enough for this to happen yet. Over the 9 months that we’ve run creator campaigns, we’ve observed a huge improvement in the amount of spam vs valuble posts. With the right anti-farming mechanisms in place, a lot of creators realised they can’t post too much and the content needs to have an actual impact. My gut feeling is, if InfoFi got another year, we would eliminate spam and slop from campaigns.”
Asked what a compliant model might look like if X offered a sanctioned framework for incentive programs, she declined to speculate and said the company had contacted X:
“I don’t know and don’t want to speculate. We’ve reached out to X about our framework and have sent them our ani-bot and anti-spam algorithms but are still awaiting their response.”
She also described how the timing unfolded from Cookie’s perspective:
“I know many people are wondering “did Cookie know before Nikita’s post”? The answer is yes and no. We got a notice from regarding API suspension, less then 24h ago before the official announcement, with a request to cancel Snaps. Nevertheless, we were not aware of the timeline and when the official announcement would be published by Nikita.”
Cookie DAO Closes Snaps Platform
Cookie DAO has officialy closed its Snaps platform. Cookie DAO wrote on X: “InfoFi is changing, and it’s time to sunset Snaps.”
“After discussions with the X team about their API and X use policies, we’ve decided to shut down Snaps and all active campaigns, effective immediately. As of now, we’re in active talks with X to determine whether Snaps could continue to operate in a new form,” Cookie DAO mentioned in the announcement.
There was not any new follow-up announcement from X (e.g., a detailed policy blog post, expanded definitions, or a formal developer doc update that clearly spells out edge cases) beyond the original statement by Nikita Bier.
Positive cleanup — or platform power?
X’s move is likely to be welcomed by ordinary users frustrated by reply spam — especially in high-traffic verticals like crypto — because it targets the incentive loop that makes low-quality content economically rational. Social Media Today described the change as a bid to reduce spam by “cutting off API access” to apps that reward posting, echoing X’s view that the shift should improve feeds once bots stop being paid.
But the backlash risk isn’t only about crypto. It’s about predictability for developers and the degree of control a dominant distribution platform can exert over downstream business models that depend on its data.
Whether that’s “monopolistic” depends on definitions. X is not obligated to support third-party incentives that degrade user experience, and there are alternative venues for crypto communities. Still, the incident is a case study in platform gatekeeping: once a product’s core mechanics depend on a centralized API, the platform can effectively set the rules of survival.
X’s own messaging underscored that power. Bier not only announced enforcement; he told affected developers to reach out for help “transitioning” to rival platforms such as Meta’s Threads or Bluesky.
What it means for InfoFi tokens and “attention markets”
The near-term effect is to force a redesign of products whose reward accounting is based on X-native engagement. For token markets, the episode injects a clearer form of “platform risk” into valuations: if demand depends on activity that can’t be measured without X’s API, a policy revocation can quickly erase utility.
For X, the bet is that a stricter stance improves conversation quality and reduces spam-driven load, even if it means walking away from API revenue tied to the very behavior it is now trying to suppress.
For projects like Cookie, the pivot appears to be toward broader data aggregation across social and onchain sources — and away from incentive systems that require X’s permission to function.
Overall, the crackdown is a reminder that “financialized attention” can scale faster than governance mechanisms can mature — and that the platform hosting the attention ultimately retains the power to pull the plug.
Read Also:
Disclaimer: The information provided on AlexaBlockchain is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Read complete disclaimer here.
Image Credits: X, Shutterstock, Canva, Wiki Commons
