Gate.io Blog When Will the Top-Ranking Project Turn the Tide When Airdrops Fall Short of Expectations?

When Will the Top-Ranking Project Turn the Tide When Airdrops Fall Short of Expectations?

01 January 08:00

[//]:content-type-MARKDOWN-DONOT-DELETE
![](https://gimg2.gateimg.com/image/article/1720074377sdfx.jpeg)
##  [TL；DR]: 
Recently, airdrops of many large-scale projects such as LayerZero, zkSync, Blast, etc. have sparked community controversy, and the coin price has been continuously declining since its launch, which the market has not accepted.

Unable to meet the interests of the majority of participants but making the airdrop rules unfair and impartial, this actually promotes large-scale selling, leading to a win-win situation for first—and second-level participants and even project parties.

Since the beginning of this year, MEME, which focuses more on Fair, has emerged, and it is precisely a manifestation of the market's stress on airdrop correction.

## Introduction
12,000 addresses without interaction have had zkSync airdrops, LayerZero airdrops hunting witches and mandatory donations, and Blast airdrops targeting wealthy individuals. Recently, many king level project airdrops have sparked community controversy, and the coin prices have plummeted since going online, not being accepted by the market.

Against the backdrop of loose liquidity, are these top projects still worth being bought by the market, is the era of airdrops coming to an end, and what pitfalls should participants pay attention to in the future? Let's explore together.
 
##  LayerZero: The Most Stingy Airdrop in History
Recently, a series of top projects jokingly referred to as old brand PUA by the community have released airdrops and launched tokens. Still, their performance has been difficult to satisfy the community.

Firstly, the cross chain project LayerZero announced its airdrop plan on May 3 and launched a one-month witch censorship operation. The censorship mechanism is divided into three stages: self-disclosure, official censorship, and bounty reporting, with the bounty reporting mechanism causing widespread controversy in the market. This mechanism encourages users to report potential witch behavior, and whistleblowers can obtain 10% of the reported airdrop share, leading to a wave of reports in the market, including small studios being mistakenly injured, security companies actively participating, and frequent rumors and reports.

Through this action, LayerZero successfully identified and processed a large number of potential witch addresses, ultimately determining over 800,000 addresses as potential witches, of which 338,000 addresses were self-exposed.

![](https://gimg2.gateimg.com/image/article/17200744641.jpeg)
Source: @PrimordialAA
 
However, this move has also sparked controversy in the community over the rationality and necessity of the reporting mechanism, with some users believing that the project team has neglected the hair clippers' positive contribution.
 
## ZkSync: Airdrops Questioned for Being Opaque and Unfair
If LayerZero can be considered the most stingy airdrop, then zkSync's airdrop list includes multiple known witch addresses, which have also been widely criticized.

On June 11, ZK Nation, one of the four giants of the established L2 public chain, announced the economic model and airdrop rules for ZK tokens, and announced that 17.5% of the total supply will be used for airdrop, with two qualification criteria: users (89%) and contributors (11%). Users need to meet a series of transaction or interaction conditions, while contributors qualify based on their positive contributions to the zkSync ecosystem.

However, subsequently zkSync became embroiled in a series of controversies. Firstly, there are allegations that 12000 zero interaction addresses were also airdropped, raising questions about the fairness of the qualification review.

The well-known KOL Cryptop has published a lengthy article, raising three major doubts, including abnormal fluctuations in TVL, obtaining airdrop qualifications without trading wallets, and the concentration of airdrop tokens, suggesting that there may be improper operations during the airdrop process.
![](https://gimg2.gateimg.com/image/article/17200747362.jpeg)
Source: @cryppinfluence
 
In addition, "Witch Hunter" Artemis pointed out that there are suspected to be a large number of mouse warehouse addresses in the airdrop list, which are created and deposited through specific patterns, suspected of using _script_ operations to obtain a large amount of tokens. These addresses highly overlap with the witch list reported by the cross chain platform LayerZero, further exacerbating community concerns about fairness.

Even more surprising is that many eligible users could not receive airdrops, while some addresses received far more tokens than usual, further exacerbating the controversy.

## Blast: Point Mechanism Becomes “PUA,” Market Giants are Facing a Downturn
The L2 public chain Blast, which focuses on native revenue, recently released airdrops. Compared to LayerZero and zkSync, it pays more attention to rules, but its airdrop effect is still unsatisfactory.

The main controversies among participants are concentrated in three aspects. First, Blast's point-based gameplay calculation rules are opaque and frequently modified, resulting in serious PUA for users. Second, the token collection process is cumbersome, with users having to watch long videos and download apps to complete multiple tasks. Finally, the top 1% of activity-ranked addresses face a linear token unlocking period of up to 6 months.
![](https://gimg2.gateimg.com/image/article/17200747633.jpeg)
Source: blast.io
 
Despite the controversy, compared to other recent projects, Blast has received relatively fewer negative reviews in the community, indicating that its airdrop mechanism has made some efforts to balance the interests of large funds and retail investors. However, the performance of the coin price is also unsatisfactory.
 
## How the Market Pays for Airdrop Disputes and Weak Currency Prices
In fact, the recent airdrop effects of large-scale projects such as zkSync (ZK), LayerZero (ZRO), and Blast (BLAST) have not been satisfactory. This is not only due to the tight liquidity market but also because they cannot meet the interests of most participants and make the airdrop rules unfair and fair, promoting large-scale selling. As a result, there has been a win-win situation for primary and secondary market participants and even project parties.

In fact, when we look back at airdrops, they are full of complex and subtle interdependence and confrontation between the project team and the Maoist Party. From Auroracoin's initial trial with a small knife to the DeFi craze sparked by <a href="/price/uniswap-uni" target="_blank" class="blog_inner_link">Uniswap</a>, the airdrop strategy has gradually evolved from simply joining the community to a high-threshold model of deep interaction, witch screening, and even mixed fund verification.

In fact, the current survival dilemma of Web3 projects lies in the scarcity of effective demand and the scarcity of early users, making airdrop a key tool for quickly attracting new customers and activating the market. However, this strategy has also given rise to a specialized and large-scale grooming industry chain, which aims to obtain high-value airdrops and bring more abundant interactive data and token selling pressure. LayerZero's radical witch-hunting bounty mechanism is an extreme manifestation of this trend. Despite ongoing controversy, in the long run, its model may still be borrowed by large-scale projects.

Similar to the subsidy war in the Web2 era, the essence of airdrops is project subsidies after users invest, but the sustainability of projects ultimately depends on their self-generating ability. It can be foreseen that with the increase of airdrop thresholds and the rise of point-based systems, traditional opportunities for interaction between users and project parties are becoming increasingly scarce, and the cognitive gap between users and project parties is widening.

Of course, the current market downturn, insufficient liquidity, the arrogance of project parties, and the misplaced expectations of interactive users have further exacerbated the negative effects of airdrops. Since the beginning of this year, the rise of unowned MEME, which focuses more on Fair, reflects the market's stress on airdrop correction.
![](https://gimg2.gateimg.com/image/article/17200747744.jpeg)
Source: MarketVector
 
In short, as an important means of quickly attracting new customers and activating popularity, airdrops are also evolving with the market environment. The recent controversies over airdrops for multiple large-scale projects have not only revealed the technical difficulties of airdrop allocation and the human challenges faced by project parties, but also indicated that seeking the core projects that truly demand it is the key to sustainable development in the industry.

<div class="blog-details-info">
<div>Author:**Carl Y.**, Gate.io Researcher
<div>Translator:Joy Z.
<div class="info-tips">\*This article represents only the views of the researcher and does not constitute any investment suggestions.
<div>\*Gate.io reserves all rights to this article. Reposting of the article will be permitted provided Gate.io is referenced. In all cases, legal action will be taken due to copyright infringement.
</div>

BTC/USDT -2.93%

ETH/USDT -1.22%

GT/USDT -1.00%

TL；DR

Introduction

LayerZero: The Most Stingy Airdrop in History

ZkSync: Airdrops Questioned for Being Opaque and Unfair

Blast: Point Mechanism Becomes “PUA,” Market Giants are Facing a Downturn

How the Market Pays for Airdrop Disputes and Weak Currency Prices

Unbox Your Luck and Get a $6666 Prize

When Will the Top-Ranking Project Turn the Tide When Airdrops Fall Short of Expectations?

Select language and region

Fiat Currencies