Airdrops, as a common marketing and user acquisition strategy in the cryptocurrency field, were once all the rage for their “zero-cost” attributes and wealth-creating effects. However, recently, airdrops have gradually evolved from being synonymous with the “get-rich-quick myth” to a controversial gaming field. The trust crisis between project owners and users, the imbalance of the distribution mechanism, the prevalence of witch attacks, and the survival dilemma of the “money-grabbing party” together constitute the complex picture of the current airdrop ecosystem. This article will take the Berachain incident as the core case, combined with disputes such as ZKsync and LayerZero, to explore the root causes of the imbalanced distribution in the Web3 airdrop ecosystem, the chain reaction of user backlash, and the deep-seated contradictions behind the collapse of trust.
1. The project distribution is unbalanced, and users go from "harvesting" to "being harvested"
1) Capital-led distribution logic
Take the recently controversial Berachain airdrop as an example. The total amount of airdrop accounted for 15.8% of the initial supply, but testnet users only received 1.65%, while NFT holders accounted for 6.9%. Six NFT major holders divided up $306 million in tokens through the scarce series of NFTs, and the highest income of a single address reached $55.77 million. A similar phenomenon is also evident in ZKsync: 1.3% of the addresses (about 9,203) received 23.9% of the token share, and the difference between the lowest and highest rewards was 100 times. This "rich-poor disparity" exposes two major problems of the airdrop mechanism:
Resources are tilted towards capital: NFT holders are mostly early investors with strong financial resources, while test network users who contribute to on-chain activity have become "low-income households" (for example, the average income per user of the Berachain test network is less than US$1).
The rules are black-boxed: Berachain has not disclosed the airdrop algorithm dashboard, ZKsync has been questioned for distributing tokens to Pudgy Penguins NFT holders who are not involved in the ecosystem, and the ambiguity of the rules has given rise to "rat trading" disputes.
2) Systematic depreciation of interaction value
Traditional airdrops (such as Arbitrum) focus on interactive behaviors such as transaction frequency and cross-chain times, but ZKsync turns to "fund retention time" and "risk asset allocation" as core indicators: providing liquidity to DEX can get double bonuses, and users holding high-risk tokens or NFTs enjoy multiplier rewards. Although this shift suppresses witch attacks, it leads to the failure of incentives for ordinary users, forming a vicious cycle of "the higher the capital threshold, the greater the return."
2. Users went from "furry carnival" to "trust collapse "
Failed Expectations and Liquidity Trap
Inverted returns: Berachain's LuMao Studio invested millions of test network addresses and only received a thousand tokens (worth about 10,000 US dollars), while pre-deposit users were forced to lock their positions for three months, and early redemption would incur a 2% loss, which was ridiculed as "reverse lures".
The selling spree spread: only 19.3% of the ZKsync airdrop addresses continued to hold tokens, and 80% of the sales caused the main network activity to plummet; the cross-chain transaction volume of Stargate Finance in the LayerZero ecosystem dropped sharply by 75% after the airdrop, highlighting that the airdrop has become a "one-time traffic tool."
The spread of trust rifts
Double standards in rules: ZKsync Lite users were disqualified for not participating in Era interactions, while its partner Aave received 0.5% of the tokens (worth $20 million), far exceeding its public financing amount.
The bankruptcy of technological idealism: Although Berachain launched the innovative PoL mechanism and dual-token model (BERA/BGT), the distribution dispute reveals that if the economic model deviates from fairness, technological innovation will become a "fig leaf" for centralized control.
The “accidental” cost of anti-witch measures
LayerZero banned more than 1 million addresses through community reports, but misjudged a large number of real users (such as those with similar naming patterns for ENS domain names); reputation systems such as Gitcoin Passport attempted to balance security and fairness, but biometric verification and KYC caused privacy disputes and fell into the "decentralized identity trilemma."
3. The survival dilemma of the Mao Party
With the evolution of the Web3 airdrop ecosystem, the survival environment of the "fleecing party" (i.e. users who participate in multiple project airdrops to obtain token rewards) is becoming increasingly severe. The low-cost, high-return strategy has gradually become ineffective, replaced by high costs, complex rules and opaque project operations.
The failure of “small funds and high frequency interaction” has turned into “high-cost gambling”
Early investors maximized the benefits of airdrops by creating addresses in batches and interacting with them at low cost (such as small transactions and cross-chain operations). However, as the project adjusted the airdrop rules, a single address needs to retain large amounts of funds for a long time, and the cost far exceeds the benefits (some users' handling fees are even higher than the value of the airdrop). Taking ZKsync as an example, the project uses "fund retention time" and "risk asset allocation" as core indicators, requiring users to hold large amounts of funds for a long time or provide liquidity. This has caused the cost of a single address to rise significantly, while the benefits may not cover the investment.
Interaction value depreciation
Traditional high-frequency interactive behaviors (such as transactions and cross-chain) have a lower weight in airdrops, and it is difficult for ordinary users to obtain substantial returns through low-cost operations. On the contrary, users with strong capital have obtained higher rewards by holding high-risk assets or NFTs, leaving ordinary users with less and less room for profit.
4. Solution: Reconstructing a consensus on fairness
At present, airdrops seem to be in a dilemma. Traditional airdrop models are often simple and crude, using the number of addresses or the amount of coins held as the only criterion, ignoring the user's real contribution to the project and the long-term value. This kind of "sprinkling money" airdrop is not only difficult to attract target users, but also encourages speculative behavior, deviating from the original intention of project development.
In order to reconstruct the fairness consensus, we need to establish a more scientific and reasonable airdrop mechanism:
From "quantity" to "quality": Incorporate users' contribution to the project into the airdrop criteria, such as participating in community building, providing liquidity, completing specific tasks, etc., to encourage users to deeply participate in the project ecosystem rather than simply pursuing the number of addresses.
From “one-time” to “sustainable”: Combine airdrops with the long-term development goals of the project, such as providing dynamic rewards based on the user’s holding time, number of governance participation, etc., to encourage users to grow with the project.
From "centralization" to "decentralization": Use blockchain technology to establish a transparent and open airdrop mechanism, such as automatically executing airdrop rules through smart contracts to avoid human manipulation and enhance user trust.
To reconstruct the fairness consensus, the project party needs to be open and transparent and co-govern with community users, for example:
Algorithm audit: disclose airdrop parameters (such as Berachain needs to disclose interaction frequency weights), and introduce third-party audits to verify the rationality of the rules.
DAO governance: LayerZero attempts to disclose anti-sybil 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 distribution: Jito dynamically adjusts rewards according to the length of pledge and contribution to limit the monopoly of whales; Berachain can increase the weight of small and high-frequency users and reduce the proportion of asset thresholds.
Long-term value binding: Optimism links airdrops with governance rights. Users need to continue to participate in voting to unlock benefits and suppress short-term selling.
Technology enables fair verification; Gitcoin Passport increases the cost of Sybil attacks through multi-dimensional identity authentication such as social accounts and on-chain behaviors; privacy protocols such as Aleo can explore zero-knowledge proof technology to verify real-person identities while protecting privacy.
Airdrops are not a panacea, nor can they guarantee the success of a project. However, by reconstructing the consensus on fairness, airdrops can become a bridge between project owners and users, attracting users who truly recognize the value of the project and jointly promoting the prosperity and development of the on-chain ecosystem.
Conclusion
Airdrops should not be a "wealth transfer game". The dispute between Berachain and ZKsync reveals the core contradiction of the Web3 airdrop mechanism: project owners pursue cold start efficiency, users desire fair returns, and capital seeks opportunities for arbitrage. When airdrops are alienated into "VC exit channels" or "traffic baits", trust collapse and user exodus will become inevitable. In the future, only through transparent rules, community co-governance and technological iteration, can airdrops return to their essence of "contributors first" and reshape the trust foundation of the Web3 ecosystem - allowing value creators to share value is the ultimate answer to the spirit of decentralization.
