reply guys

I’ve never liked leaderboards on social platforms.

In games, sure they make sense. You’re meant to compete. But when social spaces start ranking people, something subtle shifts. The goal becomes visibility. Attention. Optimizing yourself for applause.

FC talks a lot about decentralization, authenticity, and creativity but so much of the energy still orbits around the leaderboard. Casts become performances. Engagement becomes currency. And over time, people start posting not from the soul, but from strategy.

It’s exciting if you’re at the top. But what does that say to everyone else?

When the system forces you to constantly seek validation, it stops being social it becomes transactional.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s time to rethink that whole thing. Not everything meaningful can be ranked. Not everything valuable needs a number next to it.

Crypto. Geopolitics. Music. Travel. Tech.

Artist Father & Dog dad to Jungle 
 /anemale /symbolic-citees 
https://foundation.app/mint/eth/0x9157eBC552B90547d75eC96b2C420cDF62e39A08

I hear you and I’m not saying people at the top aren’t creative or meaningful. Many are. I admire that. But my discomfort isn’t about them, it’s about the system itself.

Even if rankings reward good creators, they also reshape how we engage. They create a quiet pressure to perform, to measure ourselves, to interpret our worth through feedback loops for some of us, that makes the space feel less authentic  like we’re always being measured, even in moments meant to be human and unfiltered.

It’s not about who’s “winning.” It’s about what we’re turning connection into and whether we’re okay with that.

I don’t look at the rankings. The ones chasing likes aren’t at the top Oneday, sorry but you’re wrong about that. 

The people at the top are creative, they share their visions or their creations. They have real personality and energy. I think this ranking is a kind of support the community gives to users they find meaningful