Under the "rational person hypothesis", everyone must hope that their articles will be seen and interacted with by more people, so as to obtain higher scores or benefits. Naturally, whether the article is "communicative" and "natural" has become an important consideration. But the reality is that many users don't actually want to interact with content that can be seen as "mouth-licking" at a glance. Especially when the article directly mentions the InfoFi platform and seems too straightforward, the willingness to engage will decrease. This also limits the possibility of further "breaking the circle" of these contents. So from the point of view of communication strategy, the more "natural" the better. Make it feel like it's a real expression or sharing, rather than task-based content, so that others are more willing to like, retweet, and comment. Shoehorning the name of the InfoFi platform into the article, like "there is no silver three hundred taels here", makes people subconsciously feel a sense of distance. What's more, now that InfoFi has a declining weight on coterie interaction groups, relying on "cross-brushing" alone may no longer be an effective strategy. From a long-term perspective, from the perspective of the project side, what they hope to really score points is also likely to be those that are natural and can trigger real discussions.