In 2026, the crypto market’s approach to pricing AI-driven narratives is undergoing a profound split. On one side, the spotlight shines on the computing power layer and agent platforms; on the other, the once-popular information infrastructure track is seeing two flagship projects—Kaito and Arkham—grapple with a sharp divergence between token prices and product utility.
Both projects aim to turn "information" into tradable on-chain assets, but their paths are fundamentally different. Kaito is building an attention marketplace, tokenizing social influence and content impact. Arkham is developing an intelligence marketplace, transforming on-chain addresses and entity behaviors into verifiable data products. One seeks to price "attention," the other aims to price "truth."
As of May 28, 2026, according to Gate market data, KAITO is priced at $0.4688 and ARKM at $0.14115, with both tokens down roughly 78% over the past year. The similarity in price performance masks a fundamental difference in the durability of their business models.
Two Distinct Definitions of Information Assets
Kaito’s core product is an AI-driven crypto information aggregation and search platform. Its KAITO token was initially launched via the "Yaps" points mechanism—users earned Yaps points through content creation and community engagement, which could then be exchanged for token rewards. However, this mechanism faced a structural shock in January 2026. Nikita Bier, Head of Product at X (formerly Twitter), announced a revision to the API policy, explicitly banning any apps that incentivize users to post on X, citing the proliferation of AI-generated spam. Kaito promptly shut down the Yaps product, and the token price dropped about 17% within hours. Since then, Kaito has pivoted to the "Kaito Studio" model, focusing on direct partnerships with high-quality creators and cross-platform content distribution.
Arkham took a completely different approach. Its Ultra AI engine links on-chain addresses to real-world entities, offering institutional-grade intelligence analysis through tools like Profiler and Visualizer. Meanwhile, Intel Exchange has established a decentralized intelligence marketplace, where users can buy or sell on-chain analysis results, address tags, and vulnerability tracking reports using ARKM tokens. This is a direct attempt to monetize "intelligence."
Both projects share the goal of moving information out of the realm of free public goods and into the crypto economy’s pricing structure. Yet their chosen value anchors are entirely different—a distinction that became even clearer after the X platform’s policy upheaval in early 2026.
From Narrative Resonance to Divergent Paths
In early 2024, the narrative of AI merging with crypto reached a fever pitch, and both Kaito and Arkham drew significant market attention. Kaito quickly built up its user base and community presence through the Yaps points system, becoming a core node in the crypto social graph. Arkham, meanwhile, established itself as the "on-chain FBI" through high-profile intelligence disclosures—including tracking the Lazarus Group’s on-chain activities and marking the real-time flow of funds from the KelpDAO exploit.
January 2026 marked a critical turning point. X’s API ban on InfoFi applications directly hit the attention economy model, which relied on "post-to-earn" mechanics. The shutdown of Kaito’s Yaps wasn’t just a product adjustment—it exposed the structural fragility of attention assets: their value creation depends entirely on the rules and permissions of external platforms.
At the same time, Arkham’s usage and industry citations continued to climb. The acceleration of institutional crypto adoption—Strategy’s holdings of 843,738 BTC, BlackRock IBIT’s on-chain activity, and wallet movements by sovereign funds—created a steady demand for high-frequency, high-value intelligence analysis. The divergence between the two paths, once subtle, became unmistakable.
Sustainability Differences Between Two Economic Models
To clarify the differences, let’s compare the two across four key dimensions.
Core Value Units
Kaito’s value anchor is social influence and content engagement. After the Yaps mechanism was shut down, value capture relies more on brand partnerships and KOL marketing. Arkham’s anchor is on-chain address tagging and behavioral analysis reports, which are verifiable.
Demand Drivers
Kaito’s demand is driven by project marketing needs and KOL monetization. Arkham’s demand comes from institutional compliance, trading risk management, media investigations, and security tracking—needs that are less affected by market cycles.
Supply-Side Features
The supply side of the attention economy—user-generated content—has extremely low marginal cost and high substitutability. The supply side of the intelligence economy depends on professional analysis and AI engines; Arkham’s Ultra AI has been developed for over three years, creating a technical barrier to entry.
Token Consumption/Circulation Logic
KAITO’s circulation relies mainly on incentives and distribution, lacking sustained consumption scenarios. ARKM is consumed as purchasing power within Intel Exchange, providing a fundamental use case for the token.
From a numerical perspective: According to Gate market data, as of May 28, 2026, ARKM’s 90-day price increase was 32.95%, with a 24-hour trading volume of $3.4364 million. KAITO’s 90-day price increase was 38.34%, with a 24-hour trading volume of $66,400. The stark difference in trading activity reflects the market’s varying depth of participation in these two assets.
What Is the Market Debating?
Discussions around these two paths have crystallized into three representative viewpoints.
The first viewpoint argues that despite the policy setback from X, Kaito Studio’s pivot—cross-platform content distribution and collaboration with top creators—could open a new growth channel. Supporters note that the crypto market is fundamentally narrative-driven, and tools that can precisely capture and quantify attention still hold unique value.
The second viewpoint contends that monetizing intelligence is the only sustainable business model. Arkham’s services—address association, tracking illicit funds, and disclosing institutional holdings—fulfill real-world needs. The value of information related to North Korea’s Lazarus Group’s money laundering routes and post-attack DeFi fund flows remains relevant regardless of market sentiment.
The third viewpoint focuses on a unique phenomenon: ARKM’s token price has fallen about 97% from its all-time high of around $4, yet product usage continues to rise. This "disconnect between product and token value" reveals the core dilemma of the intelligence economy—most of the value created by the product is captured externally (by media, analysts, institutions), but fails to effectively flow back to token holders.
Industry Impact Analysis: InfoFi Moves from Concept to Divergence
The split between Kaito and Arkham has impacted the InfoFi sector in three ways.
First, it has accelerated the confirmation of information assetization. Whether attention or intelligence, both have validated the premise that the crypto market is willing to pay for "useful information." This provides market validation for future information infrastructure projects.
Second, it has exposed shortcomings in token economic design. Both paths face the same challenge: How can product value be effectively converted into token value? The attention economy lost its main token distribution channel after Yaps was shut down, while value capture in the intelligence economy remains too indirect.
Third, it has propelled deeper integration of AI and on-chain analysis. Arkham’s Ultra AI demonstrates the potential of AI in address clustering, entity identification, and behavioral prediction. This direction is attracting more participants and expanding the market for on-chain intelligent analysis.
Conclusion
The stories of Kaito and Arkham are, in essence, an early evolutionary history of crypto information infrastructure. Attention and intelligence may seem like distinct value dimensions, but they both address the same question: In an era of information overload, what information deserves to be priced, and how should it be priced?
From the perspective of business model durability, intelligence economies built on "verifiable real-world demand" have a more stable foundation than attention economies fueled by "social hype"—especially after X’s policy changes exposed the platform dependency risk of attention assets. That doesn’t mean attention lacks value: it shines brightly in bull markets and fades in bear markets. Intelligence, on the other hand, is more akin to core infrastructure—steady, subdued, yet indispensable.
The ultimate test for both models isn’t which product is more needed, but who solves the token economy’s value loop first. Whoever can effectively and sustainably channel incremental product value to token holders will have a lasting advantage in the InfoFi marathon. Until then, the gap between price and technology remains the most authentic—and most unforgiving—footnote for this sector.
