There are two different groups of "opinion" leaders in this space. Both playing different games, but with the same end goal -- financial freedom. the first group are those who play the influential game. They work hard, hone their skills, network and provide value to the crypto space/niche. These activities, when done consistently over time, help these people gain some form of influence. this influence then provides them with an array of opportunities to make money and scale. This should be the ideal. the 2nd group of opinion leaders are those who play the money game. They are solely here for the money and are willing to do whatever it takes to make that money, not caring who gets burnt in the process. They buy followers, fake engagement, capitalize on lower economic regions, promote whatever and whenever as long as there's money to be made. This should not be the ideal. But here's the kicker: they still win. I'm currently on the cookie almanak leaderboard where someone with a similar follower count has more than double my snaps because they have an organized engagement group. This person is playing the money game while I'm playing the influence one, but at the end of the day, he'd win way more than me (maybe just in the short term). This money first guys win because; • People and projects don't really care. We talk about these things one day and forget the next. • Crime season is legal in crypto. • No crypto laws in some countries • Loose enforcement in others. • Projects want them to drive noise (projects removing thresholds on Kaito should tell you everything) Nonetheless, I judge no one. There are no moral scoreboards. Maybe this what @serpinxbt wants to do with ethos. Just wanted to point out that there are no absolutes to winning when it comes to making money in crypto. What matters is your personal value system.