My suggested rate on @wallchain Select is $348 for 4 posts. I am shocked. Everyone is mad at the rates right now. $50 for 4 posts. $69 for 4 posts. Some bigger creators with 80k 90k followers getting $240 for 4 posts. The timeline is calling it lowballing, slave work, agencies with no dignity. But after giving it some thoughts, I want to be honest about what we are actually mad at. (read this, could worth your 1 minute). Before InfoFi, if you had 1k or 2k followers and no connections, you got nothing. 0 deals. You retweeted for a $20 raffle that ran for an hour and ended up in the host's alt wallet anyway. You commented for free, you followed for free, you hoped someone noticed. The doors were closed unless you knew someone, ape your savings into random NFT and meme coin communities, and slowly built relationships. for years. InfoFi cracked those doors open. Smaller creators got onboarded. Bigger creators got paid lucratively. lots of people were happy. Then the other side showed up. People bought accounts. L4L and E4E groups multiplied. Engagement got manufactured at scale. Agencies and projects didn't have the time or the will to check the comment section of every big account they were paying four figures to, so they just kept paying. We all know which accounts on our timeline are not organic. We see them every day. And the money kept flowing anyway because no one had a better way (or they are just too lazy) to measure real impact. That is the system Wallchain Select is now trying to price against. So here is the honest question. If the AI is actually doing what Wallchain suggested (counting niche concentration, audience overlap, real reach inside the people who actually care about the project), and if it performs better analysis than what most agencies do manually, then maybe the suggested rates are not insulting. Maybe they are the first honest mirror this space has been handed in a long time. - Follower count alone does not matter. - Engagement under your post matters less than you think, especially if half of it is from the same 30 mutuals you trade likes with. - Reaching other creators is not the same as reaching potential users for the project. And here is the part I actually like. I can edit my price. I can apply, I can walk away, I can pull my rate up and accept I won't get selected. That is my choice and my valuation of my own work. I don't apply to every campaign. I pick the ones I actually want to talk about. Say if a campaign came up about tacos, I would do it for free. And if a taco project ran this algorithm and figured out that Lil Auntie is the ONE account on CT with real taco authority, and offered me the whole 10k budget to talk tacos, that would make complete sense. Niche concentration cuts both ways. The same logic that lowballs a generalist 80k account can hand the entire budget to one small voice who actually owns a topic (like me with Tacos) Is it perfect? Probably not. Is it going to make some people uncomfortable? Clearly already. But honest pricing based on real audience composition is a better problem to argue about than the one we had before, which was four-figure payouts going to fabricated engagement while genuine smaller creators got nothing. Anyway, Kudos to the @Wallchain team for still building after all the chaos. The algorithm changed, the model died, and they are shipping something new instead of disappearing. Please make Quackheads great again. If you have read up to this line, thank you for being a patient reader. I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Do you think this algo is exposing what we already knew, or is it just a new way to lowball creators? QRT your takes and let's start a conversation.