The Dilemma and Reconstruction of the Web3 Airdrop Ecosystem

Recently, the airdrop strategy in the cryptocurrency field has evolved from a once "get-rich-quick myth" into a controversial battleground. The trust crisis between project parties and users, the imbalance of distribution mechanisms, the prevalence of witch attacks, and the survival dilemmas of profit-seeking groups collectively form the complex landscape of the current airdrop ecosystem. This article will use recent hot events as examples to explore the problems existing in the Web3 airdrop ecosystem and possible solutions.

1. Project Party Allocation Imbalance Issues

1. Capital-led distribution logic

The total amount of airdrop for a certain blockchain project accounts for 15.8% of the initial supply, but testnet users only receive 1.65%, while NFT holders occupy 6.9%. Six large NFT holders divide $306 million worth of tokens through a scarce series of NFTs, with the highest single address earning up to $55.77 million. In another Layer 2 project, 1.3% of addresses obtained 23.9% of the token share, with the lowest and highest rewards differing by 100 times. This "wealth disparity" exposes two major issues with the airdrop mechanism:

• Resources are tilted towards capital: NFT holders are mostly early investors with substantial funds, while users contributing to on-chain activity in testnets end up being the "low-income".
• Rule black-boxing: Some projects have not disclosed the airdrop algorithm dashboard, and the ambiguity of the rules breeds "mouse warehouse" controversies.

2. Systematic Devaluation of Interactive Value

Traditional airdrops focus on trading frequency, cross-chain interactions, and other engagement behaviors, but recently some projects have shifted to "capital retention time" and "risk asset allocation" as core indicators: Providing liquidity to DEX can earn double rewards, and users holding high-risk tokens or NFTs enjoy multiplier rewards. This shift, while curbing witch attacks, has led to a failure in incentives for ordinary users, creating a vicious cycle where "the higher the capital threshold, the greater the returns."

2. User Trust Crisis

1. Expectations Falling Short and Liquidity Trap

• Yield inversion: A certain project's token farming studio invested millions in a test network address but only received a thousand tokens (worth about $10,000), while pre-deposit users were forced to lock their funds for three months, and early redemption required bearing a 2% loss, which was ridiculed as "anti-farming".
• Sell-off wave spreads: Only 19.3% of the airdrop addresses of a certain Layer 2 project continue to hold tokens, with 80% sold off leading to a sharp decline in mainnet activity; the trading volume of a certain cross-chain project ecosystem plummeted by 75% after the airdrop, highlighting that airdrops have become a "one-time traffic tool."

2. The Spread of Trust Gaps

• Double standards: Early users of a certain project were deprived of eligibility for not participating in new version interactions, while partners received a large amount of tokens, far exceeding their public fundraising amount.
• The Bankruptcy of Technological Idealism: Although some projects have introduced innovative mechanisms and models, allocation disputes reveal that if the economic model deviates from fairness, technological innovation becomes a "fig leaf" for centralized control.

3. The "collateral damage" cost of anti-witch measures

A cross-chain project banned over 1 million addresses based on community reports, but misjudged a large number of real users; the reputation system attempts to balance security and fairness, but biometric verification and KYC have sparked privacy controversies, falling into the "trilemma of decentralized identity".

3. The Survival Dilemma of the Wool Pullers

With the evolution of the Web3 Airdrop ecosystem, the survival environment for the "毛党" (毛党 refers to opportunists looking to profit from airdrops) is becoming increasingly severe. The once low-cost, high-return strategy is gradually losing effectiveness, replaced by high costs, complex rules, and opaque operations from project parties.

1. "Small capital high-frequency interaction" is invalid and turned into "high-cost game"

In the early days, the "撸毛党" maximized their Airdrop profits by creating multiple addresses and engaging in low-cost interactions. However, as project teams adjusted Airdrop rules, a single address now requires a large amount of funds to be held for a long time, which makes the costs far exceed the profits. A certain Layer 2 project has set "fund retention time" and "risk asset allocation" as core indicators, requiring users to hold large amounts of funds for an extended period or provide liquidity. This significantly increases the costs for a single address, while the profits may not cover the investment.

2. Interaction value depreciation

The weight of traditional high-frequency interactive behaviors (such as trading and cross-chain) in Airdrops has decreased, making it difficult for ordinary users to achieve considerable gains through low-cost operations. In contrast, users with strong capital have received higher rewards by holding high-risk assets or NFTs, leaving ordinary users with less and less profit space.

IV. Breaking the Deadlock: Reconstructing Consensus on Fairness

Currently, airdrops seem to be caught in a dilemma. The traditional airdrop model is often simplistic and brutal, using only the number of addresses or the amount of tokens held as the sole criteria, ignoring the genuine contributions and long-term value of users to the project. This "money-spraying" type of airdrop not only struggles to attract target users but also fosters speculative behavior, deviating from the original intention of project development.

To reconstruct fairness consensus, it is necessary to establish a more scientific and reasonable Airdrop mechanism:

1. From "quantity" to "quality": Incorporating users' contributions to the project into the Airdrop criteria, such as participating in community building, providing liquidity, completing specific tasks, etc., encourages users to engage deeply in the project ecosystem, rather than simply pursuing the number of addresses.

2. From "one-time" to "continuous": combine airdrops with the long-term development goals of the project, for example, by providing dynamic rewards based on users' holding time and participation in governance, to incentivize users to grow together with the project.

3. From "Centralized" to "Decentralized": Utilizing blockchain technology to establish a transparent and open Airdrop mechanism, for example, by automatically executing Airdrop rules through smart contracts, avoiding human manipulation and enhancing user trust.

Reconstruct the consensus of fairness; project parties need to be transparent and co-govern with community users, for example:

• Algorithm Audit: Public Airdrop parameters, introduce third-party audit to verify the rationality of the rules.
• DAO Governance: Attempt to publicly disclose anti-witch standards in advance and open community discussions. In the future, a DAO voting mechanism may be introduced to allow users to participate in rule design.
• Gradient Allocation: Dynamically adjust rewards based on staking duration and contribution to limit whale monopolization; increase weight for small frequent users and reduce the proportion of asset thresholds.
• Long-term value binding: Link the airdrop to governance rights, requiring users to continuously participate in voting to unlock earnings and suppress short-term sell-offs.
• Technology empowers fair verification: By using multi-dimensional identity verification through social accounts, on-chain behavior, etc., the cost of witch attacks is increased; exploring zero-knowledge proof technology to verify real identities while protecting privacy.

Conclusion

Airdrop should not be a "wealth transfer game". Recent controversies reveal the core contradictions of the Web3 airdrop mechanism: project parties pursue cold start efficiency, users long for fair returns, while capital seeks to arbitrage. When airdrops are distorted into "VC exit channels" or "traffic bait", trust collapse and user exodus will become inevitable. In the future, only through transparent rules, community governance, and technological iteration can airdrops return to the essence of "contributor priority", thus reshaping the trust cornerstone of the Web3 ecosystem - allowing value creators to share value is the ultimate answer to the spirit of decentralization.