The Dilemma and Reconstruction of the Web3 Airdrop Ecosystem

Recently, the airdrop strategy in the cryptocurrency field has gradually evolved from the "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 dilemma of those who take advantage of the situation together form the complex landscape of the current airdrop ecosystem. This article will focus on a well-known project's airdrop incident as a core case, combined with other controversial projects, to explore the existing problems in the Web3 airdrop ecosystem and possible solutions.

1. Imbalance in Project Party Allocation, Users Transitioning from "Harvesting" to "Being Harvested"

1. Capital-led distribution logic

Taking the recent controversial airdrop of a well-known project as an example, the total amount of the airdrop accounted 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 earnings for a single address reaching $55.77 million. Similar phenomena are also significant in other projects: 1.3% of addresses received 23.9% of the token share, with the difference between the minimum and maximum rewards being 100 times. This "wealth disparity" exposes two major issues with the airdrop mechanism:

• Resources are tilted towards capital: NFT holders are mostly early-stage investors with substantial funds, while testnet users contributing to on-chain activity have become "low-income households".
• Rules Black Box: Some projects have not disclosed the airdrop algorithm dashboard, or have been questioned for allocating tokens to NFT holders who did not participate in the ecosystem, leading to disputes due to rule ambiguity.

2. Systematic Devaluation of Interactive Value

Traditional airdrops focus on trading frequency, cross-chain interactions, and other behavior, but some projects are shifting to core metrics such as "fund retention time" and "risk asset allocation": providing liquidity to DEX can earn double rewards, and users holding high-risk tokens or NFTs enjoy multiplier rewards. This shift, while suppressing witch attacks, leads to the incentive failure for ordinary users, creating a vicious cycle of "the higher the capital threshold, the greater the returns."

2. Users from "Hair Pulling Carnival" to "Trust Collapse"

1. Expectations unmet and liquidity trap

• Yield Inversion: A certain project's "haircut studio" invested millions into a test network address and only received a thousand tokens (worth about $10,000), while users with pre-deposits were forced to lock their funds for three months, with a 2% loss incurred for early redemption, being sarcastically referred to as "anti-haircut."
• Sell-off wave spreads: Only 19.3% of the tokens are still held in the airdrop addresses of a certain project, and 80% sold off, causing a sharp drop in mainnet activity; the cross-chain trading volume of another ecosystem project plummeted by 75% after the airdrop, highlighting that airdrops have become a "one-time traffic tool".

2. The Spread of Trust Fractures

• Double standards in rules: Early users of a certain project were deprived of eligibility for not participating in the new version's interactions, while the partners received a large amount of tokens, far exceeding their publicly raised funding.
• Technical Idealism Bankrupt: Despite projects launching innovative mechanisms and dual-token models, allocation controversies 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 certain project banned over 1 million addresses through community reports, but mistakenly flagged many genuine users (such as those with similar ENS domain naming patterns); the reputation system attempts to balance security and fairness, but biometric verification and KYC have sparked privacy controversies, falling into the "three-way dilemma of decentralized identity."

3. The Survival Dilemma of the Wool Pullers

With the evolution of the Web3 Airdrop ecosystem, the survival environment for those looking to take advantage of opportunities has become increasingly severe. The once low-cost, high-return strategies are gradually becoming ineffective, replaced by high costs, complex rules, and opaque operations from project parties.

1. "Small funds high-frequency interaction" fails and turns into "high-cost game"

Early "撸毛党" maximized their airdrop profits by creating addresses in bulk and engaging at low costs. However, as project teams adjusted airdrop rules, individual addresses required large amounts of funds to be held long-term, leading to costs far exceeding profits (some users faced transaction fees higher than the airdrop value). Taking a certain project as an example, it uses "fund retention time" and "risk asset allocation" as core indicators, requiring users to hold large amounts of funds or provide liquidity for a long time. This has significantly increased the cost for individual addresses, while the returns may not necessarily 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 significant returns through low-cost operations. In contrast, users with substantial capital have gained higher rewards by holding high-risk assets or NFTs, leaving ordinary users with diminishing profit margins.

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

Currently, airdrops seem to be caught in a dilemma. Traditional airdrop models are often simple and crude, using 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": Incorporate users' contributions to the project into the Airdrop criteria, such as participating in community building, providing liquidity, completing specific tasks, etc., encouraging users to engage deeply in the project ecosystem rather than merely pursuing the number of addresses.

2. From "one-time" to "ongoing": Combine airdrops with the long-term development goals of the project, for example, by providing dynamic rewards based on the duration of user token holdings, participation in governance, etc., to encourage users to grow together with the project.

3. From "Centralization" to "Decentralization": Utilizing blockchain technology to establish a transparent and public Airdrop mechanism, such as automatically executing Airdrop rules through smart contracts to avoid human manipulation and enhance user trust.

Reconstructing fairness consensus, project parties need to be open and transparent in co-governance with community users, for example:

• Algorithm Audit: Publicly airdrop parameters and introduce third-party audit to verify the reasonableness 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.
• Gradual distribution: Rewards are dynamically adjusted based on staking duration and contribution, limiting whale monopolization; increasing weight for small and frequent users, reducing the proportion of asset threshold.
• Long-term value binding: Linking airdrops to governance rights, users must continuously participate in voting to unlock benefits, suppressing short-term selling.
• Technology empowers fair verification: By using social accounts, on-chain behaviors, and other multi-dimensional identity verification, the cost of witch attacks is increased; exploring zero-knowledge proof technology to verify real identities while protecting privacy.

Airdrop is not a panacea and cannot guarantee the success of a project. However, by reconstructing the consensus of fairness, airdrop can become a bridge connecting the project party and users, attracting users who truly recognize the value of the project, and jointly promoting the prosperous development of the on-chain ecosystem.

Conclusion

Airdrops should not be a "wealth transfer game." Recent controversies reveal the core contradiction of Web3 airdrop mechanisms: project teams pursue cold start efficiency, users crave fair returns, while capital seeks to profit. When airdrops become "VC exit channels" or "traffic bait," trust will collapse and users will inevitably flee. In the future, only through transparent rules, community governance, and technological iteration can we bring airdrops back to the essence of "contributor priority," thereby reshaping the cornerstone of trust in the Web3 ecosystem---allowing those who create value to share in that value is the ultimate answer to the spirit of decentralization.