The Dilemma and Solutions of the Web3 Airdrop Ecosystem

Recently, the airdrop strategy in the cryptocurrency field has gradually evolved from the former "get-rich-quick myth" into a controversial battleground. The trust crisis between project parties and users, the imbalance of distribution mechanisms, the proliferation of witch attacks, and the survival dilemmas of participants together form the complex landscape of the current airdrop ecosystem. This article will explore the issues present in the Web3 airdrop ecosystem and possible solutions by examining some recent controversial events.

1. Controversy Arising from Imbalance in Allocation Mechanism

The total amount of airdrops for a certain blockchain project accounts for 15.8% of the initial supply, but testnet users only received 1.65%, while NFT holders accounted for 6.9%. Six major NFT holders divided $306 million worth of tokens through a scarce series of NFTs, with the highest single address earning up to $55.77 million. A similar phenomenon exists in other projects: 1.3% of addresses received 23.9% of the token share, with the minimum and maximum rewards differing by 100 times. This "wealth disparity" exposes two major issues with the airdrop mechanism:

1. Resources are tilted towards capital: NFT holders are mostly early investors with substantial funds, while users of the testnet who contribute to on-chain activity have become "low-income households".
2. Lack of Transparency in Rules: Some projects have not disclosed the details of the airdrop algorithm, and have even allocated tokens to NFT holders who did not participate in the ecosystem, raising doubts.

In addition, some projects have turned to airdrop strategies centered on "capital retention time" and "risk asset allocation" as core indicators. While this approach has somewhat mitigated witch attacks, it has also led to the invalidation of incentives for ordinary users, creating a vicious cycle where "the higher the capital threshold, the greater the returns."

2. The user's trust crisis intensifies

The unfairness and lack of transparency in airdrop rules have led to a serious crisis of trust among users:

1. Yield inversion: Participants in a certain project's testnet invest a large amount of resources but receive only meager returns. Meanwhile, pre-deposit users are forced to lock their assets or face losses from early redemption.

2. Selling frenzy spreads: After the airdrop of multiple projects, a large number of users chose to immediately sell their tokens, leading to a sharp decline in ecosystem activity.

3. Double Standards: Some projects apply different standards to different user groups, causing controversy.

4. Misfire of Anti-Witch Measures: A certain project banned a large number of addresses through community reports, but mistakenly judged many real users, causing controversy.

3. The Survival Dilemma of Participants

With the evolution of the Web3 Airdrop ecosystem, the survival environment for airdrop participants is becoming increasingly severe:

1. Rising costs: The early low-cost, high-return strategies are gradually becoming ineffective, replaced by high participation costs and complex rules.

2. Devaluation of interactive value: The weight of traditional high-frequency interactive behaviors in Airdrops is reduced, making it difficult for ordinary users to obtain substantial returns through low-cost operations.

3. Increased Capital Threshold: Users with strong financial backing gain higher rewards by holding high-risk assets or NFTs, squeezing the profit space for ordinary users.

4. The Way to Break the Deadlock: Reconstructing Consensus on Fairness

In order to solve the problems faced by the current airdrop ecosystem, it is necessary to establish a more scientific and reasonable airdrop mechanism:

1. From "Quantity" to "Quality": Incorporate users' contribution to the project into the Airdrop criteria, encouraging users to engage deeply in the project ecosystem.

2. From "one-time" to "sustainable": Combining airdrops with the long-term development goals of the project to incentivize users to grow alongside the project.

3. From "Centralized" to "Decentralized": Utilizing blockchain technology to establish a transparent and open airdrop mechanism, enhancing user trust.

Specific measures may include:

• Algorithm Audit: Publicly disclose airdrop parameters and introduce third-party audit verification rules for reasonableness.
• Community Governance: Publicly disclose anti-witch standards in advance and open community discussions, introducing a voting mechanism to allow users to participate in rule design.
• Gradient distribution: Rewards are dynamically adjusted based on staking duration and contribution level to limit monopolization by large holders.
• Long-term value binding: Link airdrops with governance rights to encourage users to continuously participate in project development.
• Technology empowers fair verification: Exploring multidimensional identity verification and zero-knowledge proof technologies to verify real identities while protecting privacy.

Conclusion

The reform of the airdrop mechanism requires the joint efforts of project parties, users, and the entire ecosystem. By establishing transparent rules, promoting community governance, and driving technological iteration, we can restore the essence of airdrops to "contributor first" and reshape the trust foundation of the Web3 ecosystem. Only by allowing value creators to share value can we truly embody the spirit of decentralization and promote the healthy development of the entire industry.