Binance reported:
Last night, Blast officially opened its airdrop registration. In the recent atmosphere of “air are dead” caused by ZKsync and LayerZero, Blast and its founder, Pacman, inevitably criticized by the community. There are three main criticisms:
The process of token distribution frustrating.
The token price after listing is lower than expected, resulting in low profits for participating in staking.
Addresses ranked in the top 1% need to wait for linear unlocking period of 6 months.
Specifically, before receiving the airdrop tokens users are required to watch a mandatory video that lasts for tens of minutes. Founder Pac will provide detailed explanations about Blast’s token economics and development plans. Additionally, after watching video, users must download the mobile app and obtain four hints to finally claim their tokensFurthermore, before listing on exchanges, Blast had multiple analysts estimating its token value. Even with estimates, the valuation was above $0.03 per token. However, after launching exchanges,the Fully Diluted Valuation (FDV) of Blast was only around $2 billion. comparison,L2 solutions such as Arbitrum and Optimism had FDVs to tens of billions of dollars (which also indicates that retail investors are no longer buying highDV VC coins).
But compared to the token price issue,some users who participated in large-scale staking expressed their dissatisfaction with low airdrop rewards.For example,@Christian from NextGen Venture said that he deposited over $50 million into Blast but received only $100k worthof tokens.Christian even accused Blast as a scam project and called Pacman “a serial fraudster”.@beijingduck2023,top user onthe Blast leaderboard,staked around$10,and despite having 2812 billion total pointsand 1.22 million gold points,received only64k BLASTtokens worth just over$1k.In addition,bigger holders(addresses rankedinthe top0.1%,around1000 addresses)also needto waitfora6-month linear unlocking period.
However,in all fairness,Blast’s negative reviews from the community were much fewer comparedto recent projects like ZROandZK.X user @CryptoWoodBro mentionedthat7%ofthe first phase’s air drop wentstaking,and7%went towards gold points.Stakingpoints can be earned automatically without any action required,making it for whales with large funds;gold pointsonthe other hand require therulesofeach projectand active participationin order to earn them, making it suitable for smaller investors who are willing to put in the effort. Additionally, some rules allow for points to be doubled or inflated, so Blast’s airdrop actually caters to the interests of retail investors and provides them with an opportunity tobet small win big” and accumulate wealth through hard work.
The era of ” gains” has long ended. Although Blast’s airdrop managed to quell discussions about the death of airdrops by not being exclusionary and the interests of some retail investors, its token distribution model is still not the ultimate solution Web3 projects.
Blast previously faced criticism for its point-based gameplay. In March, when Blast’s mainnet was launched, a new point-based gameplay was introduced which was criticized as manipulative. The new rules required users to migrate ETH points to the mainnet with promises of 10x inflation. However, users had to pay $50 in gas fees for migration, which was costly for small-scale investors. Furthermore,the inflation factor turned outto be arandom number between 0-10x. Although Bug fixes were made later by Blast officials,it still left behind criticism regarding opaque point calculation rules.In addition,the official secretly issued large amounts of gold pointsfor certain Dapps.
When discussing point-based systems in the community lately,someone mentioned that whether this roundofpuadepends largely on howBlastperforms.Blast fallingfarbelow expectations may result inpua disappearing as well.However,failingBlast doesnot necessarily meanthe endofpoint-based airdrops.
Although there have been long-standing complaints about point-based systems in the community,stilling points isstillcommonpracticeforWeb3projects.Some well-known projects that haven’t released tokens yet,such asScrollandLinea,havelaunched their ownpointprograms.Backpackintroducedan account trading volume scoring system.Other projects likeKIP Protocol,KiloEx,Swell,andPuffer Financehave also introducedpoint activities.Projects withoutpointsbased incentives aren’t necessarily better.Asinvest increasingly difficult situations without such incentives,it becomes hard forthemto escape taskslike running nodes,t on third-party platforms,pooling liquidity,purchasing NFTswith no actual,and more.
Even though project-led internal competition has reached its peak,it doesn’t mean thattheeraofairdropsis.Even after several setbacks,lurkers arestillactiveinunreleasedprojects.The era quick gains may have temporarily come to an end,but it marks the formalizationofAirdrops are now entering a mature stage, where users are becoming more knowledgeable and involved in Web3 projects. However, the current state of airdrops does not meet the expectations of users. The negative sentiment surrounding airdrops is mainly due to the overall market downturn. With limited new capital flowing into the crypto market, there is little interest in overvalued “value coins” that have low circulation.
Both project teams and users have different views on airdrops. Project teams see as a way to reward actual users and believe that tokens are given as “gifts” rather than rewards or incentives. On the other hand, users expect fair compensation for their contribution to ecosystem building and increasing project value.
However, defining clear guidelines for airdrops can help bridge this gap between project teams and users. It is important to separate user growth costs from airdrop budgets so that expectations can be managed effectively.
While there may not be an absolute perfect solution for airdrops or, redefining what an airdrop means and redesigning rules on this definition can help address the issues mentioned earlier.
Although Blast’s performance may have temporarily alleviated discussions about death of airdrops, it does not provide the ultimate solution Web3 projects’ token distribution models.
In conclusion, while recent criticisms highlight some flaws in current approaches to aird, they do not signal the end of this practice. A redefined understanding of what an effective and fair distribution model is necessary for both project teams and users alike.
