The imbalance of the Airdrop system has triggered a Crisis of Confidence, and the Web3 ecosystem faces reconstruction challenges.

Airdrop, as a user acquisition strategy in the cryptocurrency field, has been highly sought after for its generous returns. However, recent controversies have pushed airdrops into the spotlight, transforming from a "get-rich-quick myth" into a contentious battleground. The crisis of confidence between project parties and users, the imbalance in distribution mechanisms, the proliferation of witch attacks, and the survival dilemmas of ordinary participants together form the complex picture of the current airdrop ecosystem. This article will use several typical cases as a starting point to explore the roots of distribution imbalance in the Web3 airdrop ecosystem, the chain reactions of user backlash, and the deep-seated contradictions behind the collapse of trust.

1. Imbalance in Project Allocation, Users Transitioning from "Harvesting" to "Being Harvested"

1. Capital-led Distribution Logic

Taking the recently controversial airdrop of a certain project as an example, its total airdrop amount 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 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 significant in another well-known project: 1.3% of addresses (about 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 tilted towards capital: NFT holders are mostly early investors with substantial funds, while users of the testnet contributing to on-chain activity have become "low-income households" (for example, some project's testnet users have an average income of less than 1 dollar).

• Rule Black Box: A certain project has not disclosed the airdrop algorithm dashboard, while another project has been questioned for allocating tokens to specific NFT holders who did not participate in the ecosystem, leading to ambiguity in the rules and giving rise to "backdoor trading" controversies.

2. Systematic Devaluation of Interactive Value

Traditional Airdrops focus on trading frequency, cross-chain interactions, and other engagement behaviors, but emerging projects are shifting towards "fund retention time" and "risk asset allocation" as core metrics: providing liquidity to DEXs can earn double rewards, and users holding high-risk tokens or NFTs enjoy multiplier bonuses. This shift, while suppressing witch attacks, results in the failure of incentives for ordinary users, creating a vicious cycle where "the higher the capital threshold, the richer the returns."

2. Users from "Looming Mania" to "Crisis of Confidence"

1. Failure to Meet Expectations and Liquidity Trap

• Yield Inversion: A certain project's "wool pulling" studio invested millions in the testnet address but only received a thousand tokens (worth about $10,000), while users with pre-deposits were forced to lock their funds for three months, and early redemption would incur a 2% loss, which was sarcastically referred to as "anti-wool pulling".

• Sell-off wave spreads: Only 19.3% of the tokens are still held in the airdrop address of a certain project, and 80% of the tokens have been sold off, causing a sharp drop in mainnet activity; the cross-chain trading volume of another project's ecosystem decreased by 75% after the airdrop, highlighting that airdrops have become a "one-time traffic tool."

2. The Spread of the Crisis of Confidence

• Double Standards: Early users of a certain project were deprived of their qualifications for not participating in the new version's interactions, while the partners received 0.5% of tokens (worth $20 million), far exceeding their publicly disclosed financing amount.

• The Bankruptcy of Technical Idealism: Although a certain project has launched an innovative mechanism and a dual-token model, the distribution controversy reveals that if the economic model deviates from fairness, technological innovation may instead serve as a "fig leaf" for centralized control.

3. The "collateral damage" cost of anti-witch measures

A certain project has banned over 1 million addresses based on community reports, but misjudged 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 "trilemma of decentralized identity."

3. The Survival Dilemma of Ordinary Participants

As the Web3 Airdrop ecosystem evolves, the survival environment for ordinary participants is becoming increasingly severe. The once low-cost, high-return strategies are gradually becoming ineffective, replaced by high costs, complex rules, and opaque operations from project parties.

1. "Small-cap high-frequency interaction" has failed and turned into "high-cost game"

Early participants maximize Airdrop profits by creating addresses in bulk and engaging in low-cost interactions (such as small transactions and cross-chain operations). However, as project parties adjust Airdrop rules, a single address is required to hold a large amount of funds for a long time, with costs far exceeding profits (some users' transaction fees are even higher than the Airdrop value). Taking a certain project as an example, it requires users to hold large amounts of funds or provide liquidity, using "fund retention time" and "risk asset allocation" as core indicators. This significantly increases the cost for a single address, while the returns may not cover the investment.

2. Interaction Value Devaluation

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

IV. Solution to Breakthrough: Reconstructing Fairness Consensus

At present, airdrops seem to have fallen into a dilemma. The traditional airdrop model is often simple and crude, using the number of addresses or the amount of tokens held as the only criteria, ignoring the user's real contribution and long-term value to the project. This "money-spraying" 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 the consensus of fairness, 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., encouraging users to deeply engage in the project ecosystem, rather than simply pursuing the number of addresses.

2. From "one-time" to "sustainable": Combining airdrops with the long-term development goals of the project, such as dynamic rewards based on the user's holding time, participation in governance, 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, for example, by automatically executing Airdrop rules through smart contracts to avoid human manipulation and enhance user trust.

Reconstruct the consensus of fairness, and the project party needs to be open and transparent in co-governance with community users, for example:

• Algorithm Audit: Publicly disclose airdrop parameters (such as the interaction frequency weight required by a certain project) and introduce third-party audit verification rules for reasonableness.

• Community Governance: A certain project attempts to 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: A certain project dynamically adjusts rewards based on staking duration and contribution, limiting whale monopolization; another project can increase the weight for small, high-frequency users, lowering the asset threshold ratio.

• Long-term value binding: A certain project links Airdrop with governance rights, requiring users to continuously participate in voting to unlock benefits, thus suppressing short-term selling.

• Technology Empowering Fair Verification: A certain project enhances the cost of witch attacks through multi-dimensional identity verification via social accounts and on-chain behaviors; privacy protocols can explore zero-knowledge proof technology to verify real identities while protecting privacy.

Airdrop is not a panacea and cannot guarantee the success of a project. However, by reconstructing fairness consensus, Airdrop can become a bridge connecting project parties and users, attracting users who truly recognize the value of the project, and jointly promoting the prosperous development of the on-chain ecosystem.

Conclusion

Airdrops should not be a wealth transfer game. Recent controversies reveal the core contradiction of Web3 airdrop mechanisms: project parties pursue cold start efficiency, users crave fair returns, while capital seeks to profit. When airdrops become a "VC exit channel" or "traffic bait," the collapse of trust and user exodus will become inevitable. In the future, only through transparent rules, community governance, and technological iteration can airdrops return to the essence of "contributors first," thereby reshaping the cornerstone of trust in the Web3 ecosystem---allowing value creators to share in the value is the ultimate answer to the spirit of decentralization.