The Dilemma and Solution of the Web3 Airdrop Ecosystem

Recently, the airdrop strategy in the Web3 field is experiencing a crisis of trust. What was once seen as a "get-rich myth" has now turned into a controversial battleground. The contradictions between project parties and users, the imbalance in distribution mechanisms, large-scale witch hunts, and the survival challenges of those seeking to exploit the system together constitute the complex situation of the current airdrop ecosystem. This article will explore the distribution imbalance, user backlash, and the underlying deep issues in the Web3 airdrop ecosystem based on multiple case studies.

1. Imbalance in the Distribution Mechanism

1. Capital-led distribution logic

The total amount of Airdrop for a well-known project accounts for 15.8% of the initial supply, but testnet users only received 1.65%, while NFT holders account for 6.9%. Six major NFT holders divided a huge amount of tokens through a scarce series of NFTs, with the highest earnings for a single address reaching 55.77 million USD. In another project, 1.3% of addresses received 23.9% of the token share, with the lowest and highest rewards differing by 100 times. This distribution method exposes two main issues:

• Resources are tilted towards capital: NFT holders are mostly early investors, while the testnet users who truly contribute to on-chain activity have become the "low-income households".
• Lack of transparency in rules: Some projects did not disclose the details of the airdrop algorithm and even allocated tokens to NFT holders who did not participate in the ecosystem, leading to controversy.

2. Systematic Devaluation of Interactive Value

Traditional airdrops focus on trading frequency, cross-chain interactions, and other behaviors. However, the new trend shifts towards "fund retention time" and "risk asset allocation" as core indicators. This change has, to some extent, suppressed witch attacks but has led to the failure of incentives for ordinary users, creating a vicious cycle where "the higher the capital threshold, the greater the returns."

2. The Collapse of User Trust

1. Expectations Missed and Liquidity Trap

• Yield Inversion: Some yield farming studios invest substantial resources but achieve minimal returns, while pre-deposit users are forced to lock their assets or face losses from early redemption.
• The sell-off wave spreads: After a certain project's Airdrop, 80% of addresses chose to sell their tokens, resulting in a sharp drop in mainnet activity; another ecological project's cross-chain trading volume decreased sharply by 75% after the Airdrop.

2. The Spread of Trust Fractures

• Double standards in rules: A certain project deprives some users of their qualifications for not participating in specific interactions, while giving large token rewards to partners.
• The bankruptcy of technological idealism: Even if innovative mechanisms are introduced, if the economic model lacks fairness, technological innovation will struggle to conceal the essence of centralized control.

3. Negative Effects of Anti-Witch Measures

Some projects ban a large number of addresses through community reporting, but mistakenly judge many real users. The introduction of a reputation system attempts to balance security and fairness, but biometric verification and KYC have sparked privacy controversies.

3. The Survival Dilemma of the Hair Pulling Party

With the evolution of airdrop rules, the survival environment for the "hair pulling party" is becoming increasingly difficult:

• High-cost gaming: Transitioning from early "small capital high-frequency interactions" to requiring large amounts of capital for long-term retention, where costs may far exceed returns.
• Devaluation of interactive value: The weight of traditional high-frequency interaction behaviors in Airdrops is reduced, making it difficult for ordinary users to achieve considerable gains through low-cost operations.

IV. Reconstructing Fairness Consensus

To break the current deadlock, it is necessary to establish a more scientific and reasonable airdrop mechanism:

1. From "quantity" to "quality": Incorporating users' actual contributions to the project into consideration.
2. From "one-time" to "sustainable": combining airdrops with the long-term development goals of the project.
3. From "Centralization" to "Decentralization": Utilizing blockchain technology to establish a transparent and open airdrop mechanism.

Specific measures may include:

• Algorithm Audit: Public Airdrop parameters, introducing third-party audits.
• Community Governance: Open rule discussions and introduce a voting mechanism.
• Gradient Distribution: Dynamically adjust rewards based on contribution, limiting monopolization by large holders.
• Long-term value binding: Link airdrops with governance rights to encourage long-term participation.
• Technology empowers fair verification: exploring multidimensional identity verification and privacy protection technologies.

Conclusion

The reconstruction of the airdrop mechanism requires the joint efforts of project parties, users, and the entire ecosystem. Only by returning to the essence of "contributors first" can we reshape the trust foundation of the Web3 ecosystem. Allowing value creators to share value is the true embodiment of the spirit of decentralization.