Bittensor Dominates AI Crypto Social Activity
LunarCrush, the platform that uses artificial intelligence to track digital assets, just released its ranking of top AI projects based on social engagement. The data shows Bittensor ($TAO) leading by a significant margin with 10,900 posts and 923,000 interactions across social platforms. That’s nearly four times the social volume of the second-place project.
What’s interesting here is how Bittensor maintains 0.80% social dominance while other projects struggle to reach even half that percentage. Fetch ($FET) comes in second with 2,670 posts and 151,000 interactions, but the gap between first and second place is substantial. It makes you wonder if Bittensor’s approach to decentralized machine learning is resonating more with the crypto community.
Render and Holo Show Engagement Patterns
The third and fourth positions go to Render ($RENDER) and Holoworld AI ($HOLO) respectively. What’s notable here is that while they have similar post counts—2,350 for Render and 1,850 for Holo—their interaction numbers tell a different story. Holo actually generated 309,000 interactions compared to Render’s 138,000, despite having fewer posts.
This suggests that Holo’s content might be more engaging or that their community is more active in discussions. Both projects maintain similar social dominance percentages around 0.20-0.25%, which is respectable but still well behind the leaders.
Mid-Tier Projects and Engagement Metrics
PAAL AI ($PAAL) and ChainGPT ($CGPT) round out the projects with post counts in the thousands. PAAL recorded 1,570 posts with 123,000 interactions, while ChainGPT had 1,140 posts with 100,000 interactions. Their social dominance sits at 0.20% and 0.15% respectively.
The data shows that simply having more posts doesn’t necessarily translate to higher engagement. ChainGPT, for instance, has fewer posts than PAAL but maintains a decent interaction rate relative to its post volume.
Smaller Projects Show Diverging Patterns
LimeWire ($LMWR) and QUBIC ($QUBIC) present an interesting case study in engagement efficiency. They have nearly identical post counts—845 for LimeWire and 802 for QUBIC—but LimeWire generated 197,000 interactions compared to QUBIC’s 108,000. That’s almost double the engagement with roughly the same posting volume.
At the bottom of the list, Virtuals ($VIRTUAL) and AITECH ($AITECH) show how social metrics can vary. Virtuals had 723 posts with 82,700 interactions, while AITECH had fewer posts (675) but nearly double the interactions at 197,000. This suggests AITECH’s content might be more compelling or their community more responsive.
Overall, the data reveals that social activity in the AI crypto space isn’t just about volume—engagement quality matters significantly. Projects with smaller but more dedicated communities can sometimes generate better interaction metrics than those with higher post counts but less engaged audiences.
