Berachain airdrop overturned: Who is harvesting and who is being cut?

Recently, airdrops have gradually evolved from being synonymous with the “myth of sudden wealth” to a controversial game field. The crisis of trust between project parties and users, the imbalance of distribution mechanisms, the spread of witch attacks, and the survival dilemma of the Mao Party together constitute a complex picture of the current airdrop ecosystem.

Airdrop, as a common marketing and user acquisition strategy in the cryptocurrency field, was once popular due to its “zero-off” attribute and wealth-creating effect. Recently, however, airdrops have gradually evolved from being synonymous with the “myth of sudden wealth” to a controversial game field. The crisis of trust between project parties and users, the imbalance of distribution mechanisms, the spread of witch attacks, and the survival dilemma of the Mao Party together constitute a complex picture of the current airdrop ecosystem. This article will take the Berachain incident as the core case and combine disputes such as ZKsync and LayerZero to explore the root causes of imbalance in distribution in the Web3 airdrop ecosystem, the chain reaction of user backlash, and the deep contradictions behind the collapse of trust.

1. The allocation of project parties is unbalanced, and users go from “harvesting” to “being cut”

1) Capital-led distribution logic

Take the recently controversial Berachain airdrop as an example. The total airdrop accounted for 15.8% of the initial supply, but testnet users only received 1.65%, while NFT holders accounted for 6.9%. Six major NFT households divided the US$306 million in tokens through the scarce series of NFTs, with a maximum revenue of US$55.77 million for a single address. A similar phenomenon is equally significant in ZKsync: 1.3% of addresses (approximately 9203) receive 23.9% of the token share, a 100-fold difference between the lowest and highest rewards. This “disparity between rich and poor” exposes two major problems with the airdrop mechanism:

Resources are tilted towards capital: Most NFT holders are early investors with strong funds, while testnet users who contribute to chain activity become “low-income households”(for example, the per capita income of Berachain testnet users is less than US$1).

Blackbox rules: Berachain did not disclose the airdrop algorithm dashboard, ZKsync was questioned for allocating tokens to Puggy Penguins NFT holders who did not participate in the ecosystem, and the ambiguity of the rules spawned a “rat warehouse” controversy.

2) Systematic devaluation of interactive value

Traditional airdrops (such as Arbitrum) focus on interactive behaviors such as transaction frequency and cross-chain times, but ZKsync turns to “capital retention time” and “risk asset allocation” as core indicators: providing liquidity to DEX will receive a double bonus, and users who hold high-risk tokens or NFT will enjoy multiplier rewards. Although this turn suppresses witch attacks, it leads to the failure of incentives for ordinary users, forming a vicious cycle of “the higher the capital threshold, the more lucrative the profits.”

2. Users have gone from “hair-raising carnival” to “trust collapse””

• Frustrated expectations and liquidity traps

Revenue upside down: Berachain’s hair rolling studio invested millions of test network addresses and only earned a thousand tokens (worth about US$10,000). However, pre-deposit users were forced to lock up their positions for three months, and they had to bear a 2% loss for early redemption, which was ridiculed as “reverse rolling”.

The wave of selling spread: Only 19.3% of ZKsync’s airdrop addresses continued to hold tokens, and 80% of the selling caused the activity of the main network to plummet; the cross-chain transaction volume of Stargate Finance in the LayerZero ecosystem dropped sharply by 75% after the airdrop, highlighting the fact that airdrop has become a “one-time traffic tool.”

• The spread of trust cracks

Double standard rules: ZKsync Lite users were disqualified for not participating in Era interactions, while partner Aave received 0.5% tokens (worth US$20 million), far exceeding its public financing amount.

The bankruptcy of technological idealism: Although Berachain launched the innovative PoL mechanism and the dual token model (BERA/BGT), the distribution controversy reveals that if the economic model is divorced from fairness, technological innovation will become a “fig leaf” for centralized control.

• The cost of “accidental injury” 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 ENS domain name naming rules); reputation systems such as Gitcoin Passport tried to balance security and fairness, but biometric verification and KYC triggered privacy disputes and fell into a “de-center avatar” dilemma.

3. The survival dilemma of the Mao Party

With the evolution of the Web3 airdrop ecosystem, the living environment of the Mao Party (that is, users who participate in airdrops on multiple projects to obtain token rewards) has become increasingly severe. The former low-cost, high-return strategy has gradually failed and has been replaced by high costs, complex rules and opaque project-side operations.

• The failure of “high-frequency interaction of small funds” turned into a “high-cost game”

The early Mao Party maximized the benefits of airdrops by creating addresses in batches and interacting with low-cost (such as small transactions, cross-chain operations). However, as the project party adjusted the airdrop rules, a single address required a large amount of funds to be retained for a long time. The cost far exceeds the benefits (there are user handling fees and even higher than the value of the airdrop). Taking ZKsync as an example, the project party regards “fund retention time” and “risk asset allocation” as core indicators, requiring users to hold large amounts of funds or provide liquidity for a long time. This has caused the cost of a single address to increase significantly, but the benefits may not cover the investment.

• interactive value devaluation

Traditional high-frequency interactive behaviors (such as transactions and cross-chain) have reduced their weight in airdrops, making it difficult for ordinary users to obtain considerable benefits through low-cost operations. On the contrary, users with strong capital receive higher rewards by holding high-risk assets or NFTs, giving ordinary users less and less profit margins.

4. The way to break the situation: reconstructing the consensus on fairness

At present, airdrops seem to be in a dilemma. Traditional airdrops are often simple and crude, using the number of addresses or the amount of coins held as the only criterion, ignoring the user’s true contribution and long-term value to the project. This kind of “money-dropping” airdrop not only makes it difficult to attract target users, but also encourages speculation and deviates from the original intention of project development.

To reconstruct the consensus on fairness, we need to establish a more scientific and reasonable airdrop mechanism:

• From “quantity” to “quality”: Incorporate users ‘contribution to the project into airdrop standards, such as participating in community construction, providing mobility, completing specific tasks, etc., and 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 time for holding money, the number of times he participates in governance, etc., to encourage users and the project to grow together.

• From “centralization” to “decentralization”: Use blockchain technology to establish a transparent and open airdrop mechanism, such as automatically implementing airdrop rules through smart contracts to avoid human manipulation and enhance user trust.

To reconstruct the consensus on fairness, the project party needs to be open, transparent and co-govern with community users, for example:

• Algorithm audit: Publicize airdrop parameters (for example, Berachain needs to disclose interaction frequency weights), and introduce third-party audit to verify the rationality of the rules.

• DAO governance: LayerZero attempts to disclose anti-witch standards in advance and open community discussions. In the future, a DAO voting mechanism can be introduced to allow users to participate in rule design.

• Gradient allocation: Jito dynamically adjusts rewards based on pledge duration and contribution to limit giant whale monopoly;Berachain can increase the weight of small high-frequency users and reduce the proportion of asset thresholds.

• Long-term value binding: Optimism links airdrops to governance rights, and users need to continue to participate in voting to unlock revenue and curb short-term selling.

• Technology empowers fair verification;Gitcoin Passport increases the cost of witch attacks through multi-dimensional identity verification such as social accounts and on-chain behaviors; privacy protocols such as Aleo can explore zero-knowledge proof technology to verify real identities while protecting privacy.

Airdrops are not a panacea and cannot guarantee the success of the project. However, by reconstructing the consensus on fairness, airdrops can serve as a bridge connecting project parties and users, attracting users who truly agree with the value of the project, and jointly promoting the prosperity and development of the ecosystem on the chain.

conclusion

Airdrops should not be a “wealth transfer game. The controversy between Berachain and ZKsync reveals the core contradiction of the Web3 airdrop mechanism: project parties pursue cold-start efficiency, users desire fair returns, and capital arbitrage wait for opportunities. When airdrops are transformed into “VC exit channels” or “traffic bait”, the collapse of trust and user escape 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” can we reshape the cornerstone of trust of the Web3 ecosystem-allowing value creators to share value is the spirit of decentralization. The ultimate answer.