Kaito InfoFi campaigns: creators, leaderboards and reporting

3 formats, one Kaito campaign record

Posts, creator explainers and leaderboard reviews need separate records. A useful report connects each format to the campaign objective. It also identifies the evidence you can inspect. Keep the same review window across all 3 layers.

• Use the date and public view for each platform observation.
• Add creator post links, not notes from memory.
• Mark unavailable information rather than filling gaps with assumptions.
• Your team can then check and reuse the report.
• For wider distribution questions, compare this work with a crypto KOL campaign.
• Keep its records distinct from Kaito platform views.

What can 3 Kaito leaderboard observations tell you?

3 observations help you read a leaderboard without treating it as a full campaign verdict. Record the visible view, review window and any confirmed change. Then check the content beside it.

• Presence: Was the project visible in the view you reviewed?
• Context: Which creator posts or project topics appeared during that window?
• Follow-up: Did your team see relevant questions or visits to project information?

A leaderboard is one platform-specific signal. It cannot replace a check of what people saw. Save a dated screenshot or link when available. State exactly what the record shows. Avoid linking a change to one post or creator without supporting evidence.

If your objective is visibility elsewhere, use that platform’s own guide. These mechanics are not interchangeable. Review CoinMarketCap trending or CoinGecko trending for those separate surfaces. For Kaito, stick to views your team can actually inspect.

4 creator checks before you agree on a format

4 checks can keep creator selection tied to your audience. Don’t select only by a visible profile. Start with recent public work. Ask whether each candidate can explain the subject clearly. Then agree on the format and factual review.

• Subject fit: Does the creator already cover the project’s category or user problem?
• Audience fit: Does their public work speak to the people you want to reach?
• Clarity: Can readers follow the explanation without decoding project jargon?
• Accuracy: Can the creator distinguish supported facts from opinion?
• Format: Does the planned post or explainer suit the campaign objective?
• Disclosure: Have you agreed how any required disclosure will be handled?

Give creators current source material and a short project overview. Include a contact for fact checks. Don’t require identical wording across accounts. Repeated scripts can make different contributions less useful. Set clear limits around claims your team cannot substantiate.

For a deeper candidate review, use the crypto KOL vetting guide. Record the reason for each creator. Add their proposed angle and the evidence they can use. That note makes later content review easier.

5 working steps, from first message to report

5 steps turn an initial request into a reviewable campaign plan. Each step produces something the project team can confirm. Confirm it before publication starts.

1. Send the objective: Name the audience, intended next action and preferred Kaito review window.
2. Share project evidence: Send current documentation, product details and approved claims.
3. Map creator roles: Set subject criteria, audience needs, content formats and disclosure expectations.
4. Confirm the campaign record: Agree which visible platform views, content links and project actions we’ll log.
5. Review the report: Compare the recorded material with the original objective. Note follow-up questions.

We check source links and creator criteria before suggesting a plan. This early review can flag missing product information. It can also identify claims that need evidence. The project team can then decide who will answer questions during publication.

For a token launch, connect this campaign to a wider token launch checklist. Kaito activity can support a communication plan. It cannot replace launch preparation, project documentation or community readiness.

Which parts of a Kaito campaign sit outside your control?

Kaito decides how its leaderboard is displayed. The platform also determines project eligibility and available measurements. No campaign can promise a particular position or platform treatment. Agree on creator work and reporting you can verify instead.

That boundary changes how you write the campaign objective. Describe work your team and creators can check. Name the content topic, publication format, source links and review window. Treat platform visibility as an observation, not a booked outcome.

A useful check before publication:

• Confirm the Kaito view you intend to monitor is currently visible to your team.
• Record the date and review window for each observation.
• Separate confirmed platform information from your interpretation.
• Check current participation details before communicating expectations.

If the project needs a different discovery surface, compare it with DEXScreener trending. That is a separate platform question. It is not another name for Kaito mindshare. For Kaito campaign support, see InfoFi and mindshare campaigns.

3 inputs make a Kaito campaign review useful

3 inputs let us review the objective, creator fit and reporting plan. They also keep us from guessing. Send current public links. Identify the audience and your preferred campaign window.

• Project facts: Website, documentation, product status and public announcements.

• Campaign aim: Intended audience, useful next action and the question you want the campaign to answer.

• Timing and constraints: Preferred publication window, confirmed platform details and any sensitive claims.

• DigitalMedia1 checks the sources against proposed content angles.

• We flag gaps before setting a plan.

• You can ask how we’ll verify each report item.

• It might be a visible platform view, a post link or a project-side record.

• This makes the final review easier to audit.

• It also separates platform observations from team interpretation.

Send us those 3 inputs with your preferred window. We’ll review the material and return a written quote within 2 working days.

How it works

1. Send the campaign objectiveName the intended audience, next action and preferred Kaito review window.
2. Share project factsProvide current public links and identify claims creators can support.
3. Set creator criteriaAgree on subject fit, audience, format and disclosure expectations.
4. Confirm what gets loggedChoose the visible platform views, content links and project actions to record.
5. Review the campaign reportCompare recorded evidence with the objective and note useful follow-up questions.