The Dilemma and Turning Point of the Web3 Airdrop Ecosystem

Recently, the airdrop strategy in the cryptocurrency field has evolved from a "myth of wealth creation" to 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 constitute the complex landscape of the current airdrop ecosystem. This article will focus on several typical cases to explore the roots of distribution imbalance in the Web3 airdrop ecosystem, the chain reaction of user responses, and the deep-seated contradictions behind the collapse of trust.

1. Imbalance in project allocation, users from "harvesting" to "being harvested"

1. Capital-led distribution logic

Taking a recent controversial Airdrop as an example, the total Airdrop amount accounts for 15.8% of the initial supply, but testnet users only receive 1.65%, while NFT holders occupy 6.9%. Six major NFT holders shared $306 million in tokens through a scarce series of NFTs, with the highest single address earning up to $55.77 million. A similar phenomenon is also evident in another well-known project: 1.3% of addresses (about 9,203) received 23.9% of the token share, with the lowest and highest rewards differing by 100 times. This "wealth gap" exposes two major issues with the Airdrop mechanism:

• Resources skewed 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" (for example, certain project testnet users have an average income of less than 1 dollar).

• Rule black-boxing: Some projects have not disclosed the airdrop algorithm dashboard, and some have been questioned for allocating tokens to NFT holders who did not participate in the ecosystem, leading to disputes due to the ambiguity of the rules.

2. Systematic Devaluation of Interactive Value

Traditional airdrops focus on trading frequency, cross-chain interactions, and other engagement behaviors, but some projects are shifting towards "fund retention time" and "risk asset allocation" as core metrics: providing liquidity to decentralized exchanges can earn double rewards, and users holding high-risk tokens or NFTs enjoy multiplier rewards. This shift may suppress witch attacks but leads to the disincentivization of ordinary users, resulting in a vicious cycle where "the higher the capital threshold, the greater the returns."

2. Users from "Anticipated Carnival" to "Trust Collapse"

1. Expected Failure and Liquidity Trap

• Yield Inversion: A certain project's studio invested millions in a testnet address and only received a thousand tokens (worth about $10,000), while pre-deposit users were forced to lock their funds for three months, with a 2% loss incurred for early redemption.

• Selling spree spreading: Only 19.3% of the tokens continue to be held in the Airdrop addresses of a certain project, with 80% sold off, causing a sharp decline in mainnet activity; the cross-chain trading volume of another 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 in rules: Early users of a certain project were deprived of their qualifications for not participating in the new version interaction, while the partners received 0.5% of the tokens (worth 20 million USD), far exceeding their public fundraising amount.

• The bankruptcy of technological idealism: Despite the launch of innovative mechanisms and a dual-token model, distribution controversies reveal that if the economic model deviates from fairness, technological innovation may instead become 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 misjudged many real users (such as those with similar domain naming patterns); 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 Participants

With the evolution of the Web3 Airdrop ecosystem, the survival environment for users participating in multiple project airdrops to obtain token rewards is becoming increasingly harsh. The once low-cost, high-return strategy is gradually becoming ineffective, replaced by high costs, complex rules, and opaque project operations.

1. "Small capital high-frequency interaction" becomes "high-cost game"

Early participants maximized their airdrop returns by creating addresses in bulk and engaging in low-cost interactions (such as small transactions and cross-chain operations). However, as project teams adjusted the airdrop rules, individual addresses required large amounts of funds to be held long-term, resulting in costs far exceeding returns (some users' transaction fees even exceeded the value of the airdrop). Taking a certain project as an example, the "fund retention time" and "risk asset allocation" were set as core indicators, requiring users to hold large amounts of funds or provide liquidity over the long term. This significantly increased the costs for individual addresses, while the returns might not necessarily cover the investment.

2. Interactive value depreciation

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

IV. The Way to Break the Deadlock: Reconstructing the Consensus of Fairness

Currently, airdrops seem to be in a dilemma. The traditional airdrop model is often simplistic and blunt, using the quantity of addresses or the amount of tokens held as the sole criteria, while ignoring the user's real contributions and long-term value 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 the consensus of fairness, 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., to encourage 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 user holding time, governance participation frequency, etc., to incentivize users to grow together with the project.

3. From "Centralization" to "Decentralization": Using blockchain technology to establish a transparent and public Airdrop mechanism, for example, by 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: Public Airdrop parameters, introducing third-party audit to verify the rationality of the rules.

• Community Governance: Attempt to publicly disclose anti-witch standards in advance and open community discussions, and in the future, introduce a voting mechanism to allow users to participate in rule design.

• Gradient Allocation: Rewards are dynamically adjusted based on staking duration and contribution level, restricting whale monopolization; it is possible to increase the weight for small and frequent users, lowering the asset threshold ratio.

• Long-term value binding: Linking airdrops with governance rights, users need to continuously participate in voting to unlock profits, suppressing short-term selling.

• Technology-empowered Fair Verification: By utilizing social accounts, on-chain behavior, and other multidimensional identity verifications, the cost of witch attacks is increased; exploring zero-knowledge proof technology to verify real identities while protecting privacy.

Airdrop is not a cure-all and cannot guarantee the success of a project. However, by reconstructing fairness consensus, Airdrop can serve as a bridge connecting project parties and users, attracting users who genuinely recognize the project's value to jointly promote the prosperous development of the on-chain ecosystem.

Conclusion

Airdrops should not be a simple game of wealth transfer. Recent controversies have revealed the core contradictions of the Web3 airdrop mechanism: project parties pursue cold start efficiency, users yearn for fair returns, while capital seeks to exploit arbitrage opportunities. When airdrops become "exit channels" or "traffic bait," trust will collapse, and user flight will become inevitable. In the future, only by adhering to transparent rules, community co-governance, and technological iteration can we return airdrops to their essence of "contributor priority," thereby reshaping the trust foundation of the Web3 ecosystem—allowing value creators to share value is the ultimate answer to the spirit of decentralization.