When AI infiltrates content platforms, how can we introduce crypto staking to restore trust?

Author: Nancy, PANews

Social media may seem as lively as ever, but the sense of "real people" is gradually disappearing. As a large amount of AI slop floods major platforms, fake and clickbait content becomes rampant, and more and more real users are losing their desire to share, and are even starting to leave.

Faced with the proliferation of AI-generated content, simple algorithmic censorship is proving inadequate. Recently, top venture capital firm a16z proposed the concept of "Staked Media," using real money to filter AI noise, which has attracted market attention.

As AI begins to self-replicate, the internet is being flooded with "pre-made content."

"AI is starting to imitate AI."

Recently, moderators on Reddit, often referred to as the "American online forum," have been overwhelmed by the sheer volume of AI-generated content. On the r/AmItheAsshole subreddit with 24 million users, moderators are complaining that over half of the content is AI-generated.

In the first half of 2025 alone, Reddit removed over 40 million pieces of spam and misinformation. This phenomenon has also spread like a virus to platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, YouTube, Xiaohongshu, and TikTok.

In this era of information overload, where genuine voices are increasingly scarce, AI-generated content garbage permeates the entire internet, subtly eroding people's minds. In fact, with the widespread adoption of generative tools like ChatGPT and Gemini, hand-crafted content creation is being replaced by AI, turning into a "production line factory."

According to the latest research from search engine optimization company Graphite, since ChatGPT was launched at the end of 2022, the proportion of AI-generated articles has risen sharply, soaring from about 10% that year to over 40% in 2024. As of May this year, this proportion has risen to 52%.

However, most of this AI-generated content is like "pre-made dishes," with fixed recipes and standardized production processes, but lacking soul and tasteless. Moreover, today's AI is no longer clumsy; it can not only mimic human tone of voice but even replicate emotions. From travel guides to emotional disputes, and even social antagonism deliberately incited to gain clicks, AI can handle it all with ease.

Even more fatal is that when AI experiences hallucinations, it can spout nonsense with a straight face, creating not only information garbage but also triggering a crisis of trust.

In an era of rampant AI, building media trust with real money.

Faced with the rampant spread of AI-generated spam online, major platforms have seen limited success in addressing the issue despite updating their review mechanisms and introducing AI assistance. In a major annual report released by a16z crypto, Robert Hackett introduced the concept of "staking media." (Related reading: a16z: 17 Exciting New Crypto Directions for 2026 )

The report points out that while traditional media models tout objectivity, their drawbacks have long been apparent. The internet has given everyone a voice, and today, more and more practitioners, stakeholders, and builders are directly conveying their views to the public, their perspectives reflecting their own interests in the world. Ironically, audiences respect them not "despite their vested interests," but "precisely because they have vested interests."

The new development in this trend is not the rise of social media, but rather the emergence of "cryptographic tools" that enable people to make publicly verifiable commitments. As AI drastically reduces the cost and simplifies the process of generating massive amounts of content (generating content based on any perspective and any identity, regardless of its authenticity), relying solely on human (or robot) statements is no longer convincing. Tokenized assets, programmable lock-up periods, prediction markets, and on-chain historical records provide a more solid foundation for trust: commentators can demonstrate consistency between their words and actions (endorsing their opinions with funds); podcasters can lock up tokens to prove they won't manipulate the market or manipulate prices; and analysts can link their predictions to publicly settled markets, creating an auditable record.

This is precisely the early form of what is known as "pledged media": media outlets that not only endorse stakeholder beliefs but also provide a tangible form of media offering verifiable evidence. In this model, credibility comes not from feigned neutrality or unfounded claims, but from transparent and verifiable commitments of benefit. Pledged media will not replace other media forms but rather complement the existing media ecosystem. It sends a new signal: it's no longer "Believe me, I am neutral," but rather "This is a risk I'm willing to take, and this is how you can verify the truth of my words."

Robert Hackett predicts that this field will continue to grow, much like how the mass media of the 20th century superficially pursued "objectivity" and "neutrality" to adapt to the technology and incentives of the time (to attract mass audiences and advertisers). Today, AI makes it easy to create or fabricate any content, and what is truly scarce is evidence. Creators who can make verifiable commitments and genuinely support their claims will have a greater advantage.

Using staking mechanisms to increase the cost of forgery, it is recommended to introduce a dual content verification mechanism.

This innovative idea has also been recognized and suggestions have been made by crypto practitioners.

Crypto analyst Chen Jian stated that fake news abounds from mainstream media to independent media, with an event being reported in countless twists and turns. The fundamental reason is the low cost and high profit of fabricating information. If each information disseminator is considered a node, why not use the economic game mechanism of blockchain Proof-of-Stake (PoS) to solve this problem? He suggested, for example, that each node could need to stake funds before publishing their opinion; the more funds staked, the higher the trust level. Others could then collect evidence to challenge them, and if the challenge is successful, the system would forfeit the staked funds and reward the challenger. Of course, this process also involves privacy and efficiency issues. Currently, solutions like Swarm Network combine ZK and AI, protecting participant privacy while using multi-model data analysis to assist verification, similar to Grok's truth-verification function on Twitter.

Crypto KOL Blue Fox also believes that zero-knowledge proofs (ZK) and other cryptographic technologies can allow media outlets or individuals to prove their credibility online, similar to "signing a written agreement" online, and the agreement cannot be altered on the blockchain. However, a written agreement alone is not enough; certain assets, such as ETH, USDC, or other crypto tokens, must be "collateralized."

The logic of the staking mechanism is very straightforward: if published content is proven to be fake news, the staked assets will be forfeited; if the content is truthful and reliable, the staked assets will be returned after a certain period, and there may even be additional rewards (such as staking tokens issued by the media or receiving a share of the funds forfeited from the perpetrator). This mechanism creates an environment that encourages telling the truth. For the media, staking does increase funding costs, but in return, it gains the trust of a genuine audience, which is especially important in an era rife with fake news.

For example, when a YouTuber posts a video recommending a product, they need to "sign a contract" on the Ethereum blockchain and stake ETH or USDC. If the video content is false, the staked funds will be forfeited, and viewers can trust the authenticity of the video content. If a YouTuber recommends a mobile phone, they need to stake $100 worth of ETH and declare, "If the phone's beauty function doesn't work, I will compensate you." Viewers, seeing the staked funds, naturally feel more confident. If the content is AI-generated, the YouTuber will lose their staked funds.

To determine the authenticity of content, Blue Fox suggests a dual verification mechanism of "community + algorithm." On the community side, users with voting rights (requiring staked crypto assets) vote on-chain; if a certain percentage (e.g., 60%) is voted on, the content is deemed fake. On the algorithm side, data analysis is used to assist in verifying the voting results. Regarding the arbitration mechanism, if the content creator disagrees with the determination, they can initiate arbitration with an expert committee. If malicious manipulation by voters is discovered, their assets will be confiscated. Both voting and the expert committee offer rewards, including confiscated funds and media tokens. Furthermore, content creators can use zero-knowledge proof technology to generate proof of content authenticity from the source, such as verifying the true origin of a video.

For those with sufficient funds attempting to use collateralized lending platforms to fabricate content, Blue Fox suggests increasing the long-term cost of such fraud, including not only financial investment but also time commitment, historical records, reputational damage, and legal liability. For example, confiscated accounts would be flagged, requiring them to pledge more funds for future content postings; repeated confiscations would significantly reduce the credibility of their content; and in severe cases, they could even face legal repercussions.