The Predicament and Solutions of the Web3 Airdrop Ecosystem

Airdrop, as a common user acquisition strategy in the cryptocurrency field, has been widely popular due to its "zero-cost" property and wealth creation effect. However, recently, airdrops have gradually evolved from a "get-rich-quick myth" to a controversial battleground. The trust crisis between project parties and users, the imbalance in distribution mechanisms, the proliferation of witch attacks, and the survival dilemmas of participants collectively form the complex landscape of the current airdrop ecology. This article will use recent controversial events as case studies to explore the roots of distribution imbalance in the Web3 airdrop ecosystem, the chain reaction of user backlash, and the deep-seated contradictions behind the collapse of trust.

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

1. Capital-led allocation logic

Taking the recent controversial airdrop of a certain project as an example, its total airdrop volume accounts for 15.8% of the initial supply, but testnet users only received 1.65%, while NFT holders accounted for 6.9%. Six NFT whales shared $306 million worth of tokens through a scarce series of NFTs, with the highest earnings for a single address reaching $55.77 million. A similar phenomenon is also evident in other projects: 1.3% of addresses (about 9203) 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 substantial funds, while users of testnets contributing to on-chain activity have become "low-income households" (for example, the average earnings of users on a certain project's testnet are less than 1 dollar).

• Rule black box: A certain project did not disclose the airdrop algorithm dashboard, while another project faced criticism for allocating tokens to NFT holders who did not participate in the ecosystem, creating ambiguity in the rules and giving rise to "mouse warehouse" controversies.

2. Systemic Devaluation of Interactive Value

Traditional airdrops focus on transaction frequency, cross-chain interactions, and other engagement behaviors, but some projects are shifting towards "fund retention time" and "risk asset allocation" as core indicators: providing liquidity to DEX can earn double bonuses, and users holding high-risk tokens or NFTs enjoy multiplier rewards. 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 richer the returns."

2. Users from "Participating in the Carnival" to "Trust Collapse"

1. Expectations Miss and Liquidity Trap

• Yield Inversion: A participant in a certain project invested a million into a test network address and only received a thousand tokens (worth about $10,000), while pre-deposit users were forced to lock their funds for three months, and early redemption incurs a 2% loss, which has been derisively termed "reverse operation."

• Sell-off wave spreads: Only 19.3% of the token holders continue to hold tokens from a certain project's Airdrop address, with 80% selling off leading to a sharp drop in mainnet activity; the cross-chain trading volume of another ecosystem plummeted by 75% after the Airdrop, highlighting that Airdrop has become a "one-time traffic tool".

2. The Spread of Trust Cracks

• Double standards of 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 tokens (worth 20 million USD), far exceeding their publicly disclosed financing amount.

• The bankruptcy of technological idealism: Although a project has launched innovative mechanisms and a dual-token model, distribution disputes 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 has banned over 1 million addresses through community reports, but has misjudged a large number of 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 "three dilemmas of decentralized identity."

3. The Survival Dilemma of Participants

As the Web3 Airdrop ecosystem evolves, the survival environment for participants (i.e., users who engage in multiple project airdrops to obtain token rewards) is becoming increasingly severe. The once low-cost, high-return strategy is gradually becoming ineffective, replaced by high costs, complex rules, and opaque operations by project parties.

1. "Small funds high-frequency interaction" invalidated and turned into "high-cost game"

Early participants maximize their airdrop returns by creating addresses in bulk and engaging in low-cost interactions (such as small transactions and cross-chain operations). However, as projects adjust their airdrop rules, a single address requires large amounts of funds to be held long-term, with costs far exceeding the returns (some users' transaction fees even exceed the airdrop value). Taking a specific project as an example, it 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 significantly increases the cost for a single address, while the returns may not necessarily cover the investment.

2. The value of interactive assets depreciates

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

IV. Breaking the Deadlock: Reconstructing Consensus on Fairness

At present, airdrops seem to have陷入了一场困局, traditional airdrop models are often simple and crude, using the number of addresses or the amount of tokens held as the only criteria, ignoring the user's real contributions and long-term value to the project. This "money-sprinkling" 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 fair 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., to encourage users to engage deeply in the project ecosystem, rather than simply pursuing the number of addresses.

2. From "one-time" to "continuous": Combine airdrops with the long-term development goals of the project, for example, by providing dynamic rewards based on user holding time, number of governance participations, etc., to incentivize users to grow together with the project.

3. From "Centralization" to "Decentralization": Utilizing 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.

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: Publicly disclose anti-witch standards in advance and open community discussions, with the possibility of introducing a voting mechanism in the future to allow users to participate in rule design.

• Gradient distribution: Dynamically adjust rewards based on staking duration and contribution, limiting whale monopoly; increase weight for small high-frequency users and lower the proportion of asset thresholds.

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

• Technology empowers fair verification: By utilizing social accounts, on-chain behaviors, 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 panacea, nor can it guarantee the success of a project. However, by reconstructing the consensus of fairness, the Airdrop can serve as a bridge connecting the project side and users, attracting users who genuinely recognize the project's value, and jointly promoting the prosperous development of the on-chain ecosystem.

Conclusion

Airdrops should not be a simple game of wealth transfer. Recent controversial events have revealed the core contradictions in the Web3 airdrop mechanism: project parties pursuing cold start efficiency, users yearning for fair returns, and capital seeking to arbitrage. When airdrops are distorted into "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 airdrops return to the essence of "contributor first," thus reshaping the trust foundation of the Web3 ecosystem. Allowing value creators to share value is the ultimate answer to the spirit of decentralization.