The once-proud interaction between project teams and communities in the crypto world is now facing a crisis. Interaction, on-chain contributions, and receiving airdrops used to be the hallmarks of the crypto space. ZKsync, after numerous airdrop rules, issued a statement saying, “All decisions related to airdrop distribution are solely at the discretion of the ZKsync Association,” undermining this traditional trust-based interaction. Previously, Taiko’s co-founder, when faced with airdrop criticism, also claimed, “Rules are not transparent because transparency cannot resolve disagreements.” It seems that star project teams are increasingly treating airdrops as a resource allocation power—used arrogantly without consequences, rather than as mutual support between community users and project teams. We worry that the decentralized, transparent, and fair spirit of crypto is drifting away.

Only 1 in 10 Addresses Received Airdrops

Since LayerZero’s anti-witch short was hit hard last month, airdrop hunters have suffered another misfortune.

On June 11, ZKsync announced that it would conduct an airdrop next week and open airdrop inquiries, finally getting an answer for its four-year interaction. According to official disclosures, there are a total of 695,000 qualified addresses on the ZKsync chain, accounting for approximately 10% of the total 6.827 million addresses, which is far lower than the range of 2.05 million to 2.9 million addresses predicted in the previous TrustGo report.

According to community statistics, 9203 addresses received 23.9% of the total airdrop volume.

After four years of waiting, it was all in vain. Many users showed off their unfortunately annihilation on X.

ZKsync, with its star founders and capital backing, has always been the “white moonlight” for airdrop hunters. A prominent community figure remarked, “Some people quit their jobs for ZKs, some sold their houses for ZKs, and some took out loans for ZKs. They have permanently lost the chance to scale up their accounts and have completely failed.” It’s like a four-year relationship ending in betrayal, “after three years of dedication and countless warm nights,” only to be left by their goddess, ZKS.

Airdrop Decisions by the Association

For regular airdrops, the core criteria usually revolve around the level of interaction, duration, and the amount of funds involved. However, ZKsync has set seven thresholds for their airdrop rules this time:

1. Interaction with 10 non-token smart contracts on the Era mainnet

2. At least five transactions made as a payer on the Era mainnet

3. Transactions involving 10 different ERC-20 tokens on the Era mainnet

4. Providing any liquidity to tracked DEXs and lending protocols on the Era mainnet

5. Owning at least one Aladdin NFT

6. Being active on ZKsync Lite for more than three months before the mainnet

7. Donating to Gitcoin through ZKsync Lite in previous rounds

Overly stringent rules are not surprising in the ever-changing airdrop market, but one particular clause has placed the project team in a whirlpool of criticism for lack of transparency.

ZKsync stated in the airdrop claim interface, “Meeting one or more of the above airdrop criteria does not entitle or guarantee the right to receive an airdrop. All decisions related to airdrop distribution are at the sole discretion of the ZKsync Association.”

This statement has sparked dissatisfaction among community users, leading many to raise doubts.

A member of the crypto community commented, “We can understand the strict airdrop rules, but we cannot tolerate the project team’s arbitrary actions.”

This clause completely removes the certainty of receiving an airdrop from the set criteria, making it seem as if the project team’s mood determines eligibility. Additionally, ZKsync mentioned that tokens allocated to addresses meeting the airdrop conditions but holding fewer than 450 tokens would be reclaimed, causing dissatisfaction among some small-scale users.

“Rat Trading” incident

Although the time frame is long and there are lots of tasks, the community has always had high expectations for ZKsync. Strict rules or unconventional practices are within the community’s acceptable range. However, a series of puzzling actions taken by ZKsync recently have raised increasing doubts and questions among community members.

Nearly 10% of eligible airdrop addresses means that most of the token shares remain in the hands of the project team. Many users have questioned this move, believing that ZKsync’s actions are essentially aimed at reducing market liquidity and secretly hoarding tokens. ZKsync has so far remained silent and has not responded positively to these concerns.

In contrast, as the scandal escalated, Nansen, responsible for auditing ZKsync data, began to put some distance between himself and the incident. Nansen posted on X: “In the spirit of transparency, we want to clear up some misunderstandings about the ZKsync airdrop. We did provide some specific wallet cluster data to Matter Labs, such as those of whales or known scammers. However, we did not conduct sybil checks or advise on airdrop allocation.”

Additionally, NFT trading platform Element stated on X that as the largest NFT marketplace on ZKsync, they did not receive any ZK token airdrop.

All accusations are pointing directly at ZKsync.

Every airdrop brings mixed feelings, with some rejoicing and others disappointed. Many have successfully received the airdrop. Various screenshots of airdrops have started circulating online, seemingly trying to prove that “the ZKsync airdrop is fair and valid; it’s just that you didn’t meet the requirements.”

Bankless co-founder David Hoffman also came forward to support ZKsync, stating that survey data from Discord showed that most people were generally satisfied with the ZKsync airdrop. He also dismissed the criticism on X as bot activity.

Additionally, “ZKsync native project” Zyfi announced on social media that they received 1.642 million ZK tokens, indirectly confirming the validity of the airdrop.

However, most professional airdrop hunters in the Chinese-speaking community have almost entirely failed, with many studios once again reduced to mere tools.

Anti-rat trading operation

As airdrop addresses dropped sharply and the Rat Trading crisis escalated, the Anti-Rat Trading Alliance came into being.

The ZKsync ecological NFT project zkApes announced on the social platform that it has formed an alliance with Element, Argent, WOOFi and other projects. Its goal is to put pressure on ZK Nation and Matter Labs and boycott rat trading transactions and other behaviors.

>>>>> gd2md-html alert: inline image link here (to images/image2.png). Store image on your image server and adjust path/filename/extension if necessary.
(Back to top)(Next alert)
>>>>>

So, will the dual pressure from ecosystem projects and users force ZKsync to make new airdrop decisions?

The answer is twofold: if ZKsync succumbs to the pressure and opts for reform, it would implicitly acknowledge the existence of rat trading. However, if it continues with the current approach, the ZKsync ecosystem will likely lose a significant number of users and developers.

In the airdrop arena, project teams and airdrop hunters have always been in a game of strategy. If the balance of power tilts toward either side, it endangers the other party’s interests. When the scales tip toward the project team, allowing them to act arbitrarily, airdrop hunters become mere tools.

From recent examples like Taiko to LayerZero, it is common for project teams to be criticized when airdrops fall short of expectations. The transparency of airdrop rules should be a top priority in the decentralization process of any project.

Disclaimer：

1. This article is reprinted from [chaincatcher]. All copyrights belong to the original author [Mia，ChainCatcher]. If there are objections to this reprint, please contact the Gate Learn team, and they will handle it promptly.
2. Liability Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute any investment advice.
3. Translations of the article into other languages are done by the Gate Learn team. Unless mentioned, copying, distributing, or plagiarizing the translated articles is prohibited.