Still, every afternoon around two or three o'clock, I will check the score of the original work of stable robo on time. Originally, I excitedly thought that I would score more than 20 points today and rank much higher, but the shocking 5 points made me feel that something was wrong instantly, so I clicked on the details, and sure enough, there were only 5 points for the transaction as a guarantee.
So I started to click on the details and began to think.
The reason is actually quite simple: unrelated to the project, the points do not count.
I began to examine those few posts and started to review this project.

Let’s start with the two posts that were judged as 'unrelated to the project.' The core reason is just one— the main body of the text deviated from the project itself and turned into 'post writing tutorials + multi-project airdrop announcements.'
The first article's main topic is 'Experience Sharing on Ranking', with ROBO only serving as an example.
The second article's main topic is 'Three Days of Big Mao Forecast', with BSB, OPN, and ST taking up most of the content, and ROBO becoming the comparison item at the end.

In the square's review logic: your tags are #ROBO, $ROBO,@Fabric Foundation , but if 80% of the main content discusses other things, the system will determine 'tags and content do not match'.

In fact, I did have speculative intentions when writing these two posts. I found that this type of content generally has good traffic and is currently the mainstream writing style in the square.

Why does this situation occur? It cannot be denied that Binance Square needs this type of content now, and there is indeed an audience for it. However, it must also be acknowledged that this approach is no different from clickbait and misleading headlines.

The question is, who would be so bored as to look at the official descriptions of some project content? Almost no one, and my official posts still have consistently low traffic.

This reveals several issues. How is such scoring actually constructed? Can the scores of top leaders in the rankings be made transparent?
I admit that my research abilities or understanding of the project are indeed insufficient, but we can learn. We can gain inspiration from others' articles; only then can we flourish, right?

First, let me clarify that this post does not contain any project viewpoints.
Regarding the points project in the rankings, I have come to terms with whether only the top hundred can receive rewards.
Since I chose to participate, even if there are no rewards, I will still gladly accept it.

After all, I have learned from this experience and am sharing it with everyone, especially with those brothers and sisters who are encountering the same issues in this project.

How to avoid pitfalls in the future? Here are three iron rules:

1. The first paragraph must stick to the topic.

  • Do not start with 'Someone asked me if writing ROBO every day is annoying.' This is writing experience, not ROBO analysis.

  • You should start directly with 'There is a detail about ROBO that I have been focusing on for a long time.'

2. The main content must revolve around the project

  • Write about technical progress (OM1/x402/hardware adaptation)

  • Write about economic models (staking/burning/rebuying)

  • Write about on-chain data (trading volume/address count/token distribution)

  • Write about ecological cooperation (Circle/NVIDIA/YuTree)

  • Each paragraph must be closely related to $ROBO.

3. Other projects can only be mentioned in passing, not written in parallel.

  • Incorrect example: Today BSB, tomorrow OPN, the day after tomorrow ST, and finally mention ROBO.

  • Correct example: When discussing ROBO, also say, 'There have been a lot of Mao these days, but I find that ROBO is still the one truly worth considering.'


Also, when doing this type of project, the technique of using alpha as a hook at the beginning is no longer effective. However, I find that there are still many people writing like this in the square, which is likely unrelated to the project.

If everyone really wants to do well in this project, I suggest you look at the top-ranked leaders more.
Binance has done well in this regard, being very transparent.
My suggestion is for everyone to learn from others' perspectives on projects and writing techniques, instead of just using AI to rewrite content.
This is also my humble opinion on writing. If you think I'm wrong, then you are right.
At the same time, everyone is welcome to share their writing insights in the comments section. Let's progress together!
After all, I am currently just a newbie ranked outside the top two hundred. I wish everyone can achieve their desired results in this project!