The Dilemma and Solutions of the Web3 Airdrop Ecosystem

Recently, the airdrop strategy in the cryptocurrency field has evolved from the once "get-rich-quick myth" into a controversial battleground. The trust crisis between project parties and users, the imbalance of allocation mechanisms, the prevalence of witch attacks, and the survival dilemma of the profit-seeking parties together constitute a complex picture of the current airdrop ecology. This article will take the airdrop event of a well-known project as a core case, combined with the controversies of several Layer 2 projects, to explore the problems existing in the Web3 airdrop ecology and possible solutions.

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

1. Capital-led distribution logic

Taking the recent controversial airdrop of a certain Layer 1 project as an example, the total amount of the airdrop accounts 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 dollars worth of tokens through a scarce series of NFTs, with the highest single address earning 55.77 million dollars. A similar phenomenon is also significant in a certain Layer 2 project: 1.3% of addresses (approximately 9,203) received 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 strong financial backing, while users of the testnet contributing to on-chain activity become "low-income households".
• Rule black-boxing: Certain projects have not disclosed the airdrop algorithm dashboard or have been questioned for allocating tokens to specific NFT holders who did not participate in the ecosystem, leading to controversy due to the ambiguity of the rules.

2. Systematic depreciation of interactive value

Traditional airdrops focus on trading frequency, cross-chain interactions, and other engagement behaviors. However, some projects are shifting towards "fund 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 bonuses. This shift, while suppressing witch attacks, leads to a failure of incentives for ordinary users, creating a vicious cycle where "the higher the capital threshold, the greater the returns."

2. From "Fur Pulling Carnival" to "Trust Collapse"

1. Expectations unmet and liquidity trap

• Yield Inversion: A certain project's yield farming studio invested millions into a testnet address but only received a thousand tokens (worth about $10,000), while users who made pre-deposits were forced to lock their funds for three months, with an early redemption incurring a 2% loss, which was sarcastically referred to as "anti-yield farming."
• Sell-off wave spreads: Only 19.3% of the airdrop addresses from a certain Layer 2 project continue to hold tokens, with 80% sold off, causing a sharp decline in mainnet activity; the cross-chain trading volume of a certain cross-chain project's DEX 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 regulations: Early users of a certain project were deprived of eligibility due to not participating in new version interactions, while partners received a large amount of tokens, far exceeding their publicly disclosed fundraising amount.
• The bankruptcy of technological idealism: Although projects have introduced innovative mechanisms and dual-token models, 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 cross-chain project banned over 1 million addresses through community reporting, but mistakenly judged a large number of real 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 dilemmas of decentralized identity."

3. The Survival Dilemma of the Token Farmers

As the Web3 airdrop ecosystem evolves, the survival environment for those looking to take advantage of it is becoming increasingly harsh. The once low-cost, high-return strategies are gradually becoming ineffective, replaced by high costs, complex rules, and opaque operations from project teams.

• "Low capital high-frequency interaction" becomes "high-cost game": a single address requires a large amount of capital to be held for a long time, and the cost far exceeds the benefit.
• Interaction value depreciation: The weight of traditional high-frequency interaction behavior in airdrops is reduced, making it difficult for ordinary users to obtain significant profits through low-cost operations.

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

In the face of the airdrop dilemma, 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, encouraging users to engage deeply in the project ecosystem.

2. From "one-time" to "sustainable": Combine airdrops with the long-term development goals of the project to incentivize users to grow together with the project.

3. From "Centralization" to "Decentralization": Utilize blockchain technology to establish a transparent and open Airdrop mechanism, enhancing user trust.

Specific measures may include:

• Algorithm Audit: Public Airdrop parameters, introducing third-party audit to verify the rationality of the rules.
• Community Governance: Publicly disclose anti-witch standards in advance and open community discussions, introducing a voting mechanism to allow users to participate in rule design.
• Gradient Distribution: Rewards are dynamically adjusted based on staking duration and contribution, restricting whale monopolization.
• Long-term value binding: Linking airdrops to governance rights, users need to continuously participate in voting to unlock benefits, suppressing short-term sell-offs.
• Technology empowers fair verification: Increase the cost of witch attacks through multi-dimensional identity verification; explore zero-knowledge proof technology to verify real identities while protecting privacy.

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 crave fair returns, while capital seeks to arbitrage. When airdrops become "exit channels" or "traffic bait," trust collapse and user exodus will become inevitable. In the future, only through transparent rules, community co-governance, and technological iteration can we return airdrops to the essence of "contributor first," thus reshaping the trust foundation of the Web3 ecosystem. Allowing value creators to share in the value is the ultimate answer to the spirit of decentralization.