First, answer: no. This is actually two separate things—don’t mix them together.

First: reposting someone else’s Twitter.

Second: what you’ve done on Twitter already is pretty good. Copy the original content to Binance’s public square without changing a thing.

The former breaks the rules. The latter breaks the platform. Both look like they save time, but in the end your account will become slow and fake.

Reposting others isn’t “reference”—it’s a violation.

Someone else’s text, someone else’s images, someone else’s threads. If you don’t have authorization, copy and paste the whole thing. The public square can be treated as an infringement case. Taking down posts, limiting reach, and leaving an impression of “copying/reposting IDs” are all later issues.

What’s more troublesome is trust. In the public square, readers judge whether you’re credible based on whether this material is something you’ve actually handled. If you don’t cite the source, don’t internalize the viewpoint, and don’t redo the structure, fundamentally you’re using other people’s mental labor to dress up your own face.

So this one has no room for operation: don’t搬 (copy) other people’s tweets. If you want to quote, compress it into your own words, clearly indicate whose view it is, and then add why you agree, why you don’t, and what it means for public square readers. That’s called discussion, not reposting.

Copy yourself: doing well on Twitter doesn’t mean the public square audience will buy it.

This is the question most people really want to ask. The content is written by me, and Twitter has already validated it—can’t I just post it again in the public square? You can post the topic, but you can’t post the original piece.

Doing well on Twitter only proves that you can speak in that arena. It doesn’t prove that the same set of sentences can survive if you swap apps. I’ve seen plenty of people with existing buzz outside the platform—once they enter the public square, they just copy their Twitter timeline. The result is very consistent: not a boom—silence.

It’s not that the content suddenly got worse; it’s that the audience, the scenarios, and the algorithms all changed, and you’re still using the old drafts. Twitter and the public square aren’t two skins—they’re two businesses, with different audiences.

The encrypted Twitter circle is more like a global行情 trading floor. People scroll fast, take sides fast, and debate fast. Readers assume you’re talking to people who’ve already been steeped in the industry. Jargon can be dense; context can be missing. One judgment can get it rolling.

The public square is backed by an exchange. People who enter are first and foremost users. More beginners, more traders, and more people who come in with specific questions. What they want is: how do I start this, where are the risks, and what can I do after I finish reading?

You toss half a paragraph meant for insiders over here—people will feel like you’re talking to yourself. Different usage habits.

Twitter is fragmented time. Three seconds decide whether to repost or swipe away. Short, hard, and a bit sharp—so it’s more likely to live.

The public square is more like content that you enter alongside after opening a trading app. Users are more willing to accept content that finishes telling the whole story, and they’re also more willing to accept steps, collections, and text-with-images. They aren’t without patience—the patience is spent on whether it can be used, not on whether this sentence is clever enough. The algorithm is different.

Twitter rewards the spread—reposts, quotes, debates, and peaks of emotion. The public square rewards the closed loop: watch, interact, leave something behind, and keep generating actions within the site.

So you get a certain illusion: this post is pretty viral on Twitter—why doesn’t it make noise when copied over? Because what went viral wasn’t the script’s inherent nature; it was the platform that amplified it. If you copy the viral structure from Twitter as-is, it’s like giving a script written for a megaphone and asking it to be read behind the counter. The operating model is different.

A Twitter account is like a radio station—the core is constantly speaking, staying present, and taking up the timeline. A public square account is more like a shop plus a classroom—the core is: once you’ve come, do you know why you should come again next time? Your homepage must be understandable, your content must be findable, and your problems must close the loop.

On Twitter, what wins is what I’ve been saying. In the public square, what wins is when I finish explaining one thing. I just paste my own old drafts directly—what loses isn’t the copy, it’s the whole strategy set.

If you’re good on Twitter, why do you still find it easier to copy-paste things into the wrong place?

Because it’s already been validated outside the platform, people overestimate how universally the original content applies. There are three common mistakes. First: treat Twitter threads as public square articles. Over there, continuous replies help fill in the context. Here, readers don’t have memory of your timeline—they only see half of it.

Second: copy over Twitter’s tone as-is. Short, intense, assumes everyone understands. In the public square, this is called irresponsible—not having a style.

The third kind is treating Twitter’s update rhythm as the public square’s update quality. Over there you can count on the presence of a few posts a day. Here you send a bunch of continuous, incomplete short judgments—the homepage looks noisy, not like an account that can actually help people solve problems.

Later, I set a strict rule for myself: the two platforms can talk about the same topic, but you can’t use the same finished piece. On Twitter I can throw the conclusion out first. On the public square, the subject, steps, boundaries, and what you can do after finishing reading—all must be rewritten. Rewriting isn’t changing the title; it’s changing the reader. If it’s the same, then at least one of the platforms is where you’re being lazy.

So is your own Twitter completely useless?

Useful. As raw material, not as a finished product. It’s good for three things: see what people are arguing about in the market right now, collect high-frequency questions, and test whether a viewpoint is sharp or off-putting.

Things that aren’t suitable for it—copy, tweak a couple lines, change a tag, and hit publish. Before moving to the public square, ask just one question: if readers have never seen my Twitter, and haven’t even read my first three posts, can they still understand and use this?

You can’t—rewrite it. If you can, and preferably, rearrange it again using the public square reading style, rather than pasting the original post.

Two gates before publishing.

First gate: Is this someone else’s content?

Yes, stop.

Second gate: Did I remake this specifically based on the public square readers?

No, and stop. The content that can be posted has one very plain characteristic—it’s like it’s speaking to people here, not like it’s photocopying someone else’s timeline.

Twitter is a loudspeaker; the public square is the counter.

A voice that works through a loudspeaker may not sell once it’s heard at the counter.

You can’t take someone else’s voice and disguise it as your own. So can you just directly repost Twitter content? Reposting others—no. Reposting yourself—also don’t do it directly. The topic can be shared, but the finished product must be remade.