Maybe enough people used that username.eth auto-blocker that their engagement figures dropped a non-negligible amount. My guess is the original list to check re

Maybe enough people used that username.eth auto-blocker that their engagement figures dropped a non-negligible amount. My guess is the original list to check reverted usernames against came from https://antsstyle.com/nftcryptoblocker/ https://antsstyle.com/nftcryptoblocker/ Note the stats on that page, before it was shut down: "So far, it has performed 52.8M blocks and 10.6M mutes on behalf of users." That was one of maybe 5 different tools. Compare that to ~200-300M monthly active users. [[~~Assuming everyone who used those tools is a MAU, those usernames were collectively reaching 20% fewer people as a lower bound.~~]] Yeah, I guess this actually is a drop in the ocean. All you can say is that they were reaching 50M fewer eyeballs cumulatively. Of course that's counting everyone more than once, because they block more than one person each. Anyway, I think it's at least plausible that the people in the "growth area" for engagement stopped engaging one way or another. Folks using these tools were most likely in this segment, and the fact that they existed meant people had figured out a simple rule for you could simply avoid listening to & engaging with at all, whether the tools did actual blocking or not. Many of those blocks were presumably people who were fed up with the amount of NFT/.eth content in their feeds, and had been providing some negative engagement (but system doesn't care, that's still engagement). I think there's a thin but possible case to be made that this idea worked and now people have to strip their .eth to stop haemorrhaging engagement. Another more likely theory is that this represents people who have lost interest and no longer want to make it a very visible part of their identity.