Influence may open doors, but it does not validate the worth of a contribution A common misconception regarding creator platforms is the assumption that all scores measure the same thing. In reality, Hazels distinguishes between two distinct concepts: Social Score and campaign contribution. @0xhazels Social Score reflects your public presence on X. It provides external context, helping to determine your eligibility for participation and your standing within the scoring system. Simply put, it serves as your starting point. Campaign contribution, by contrast, is entirely different. It evaluates the specific work you submit in response to a given brief, assessing how well that submission meets the campaign’s criteria. Consider two creators who receive the same brief. The first has a large following but submits a generic post the kind that feels all too familiar. The second has a smaller community but adheres strictly to the requirements, offering a unique perspective and a clear rationale. While the first creator may have a head start, the second can easily surpass them in terms of the quality of their contribution. This distinction is crucial because a strong public presence does not automatically render a post unique, relevant, or useful. Conversely, a smaller account is fully capable of producing exceptional content. Hazels’ own documentation explicitly warns against conflating these two metrics. On a broader level, the entire Web3 ecosystem needs to get better at separating pre-existing influence from the actual value of the work produced. Reach indicates how many people might see you; it says nothing about whether what they see is actually valuable. @0xhazels Influence may open doors, but it should never be taken as proof that every contribution holds inherent value.