Recently, a new rule introduced by a leading project has attracted market attention. From an input-output perspective, different configuration schemes show significant cost differences, reflecting the diverse choices of participants.

Currently, the main schemes in the market include:

In the high-investment configuration, a monthly input of around $240 can achieve a score of 19 points, with an expected return of about $300; the next-tier scheme costs $100 per month to reach 18 points, with an expected return of approximately $110; while the lowest-cost scheme requires only $23 per month to obtain 16 points, with an expected return of $80.

Interestingly, the 1+15 configuration, although the most cost-efficient, also offers the most considerable returns, highlighting its high cost-performance ratio, which is very attractive to bulk participants.

However, from an ecological perspective, problems begin to emerge. If the airdrop value remains stable around $40 in the long term, efficient bulk operators will quickly push the participation threshold higher, potentially exceeding 240 points. Once this situation forms, the survival space for ordinary users will be significantly compressed—although the rules appear stricter on the surface, in reality, high-score rewards are more easily monopolized by resource-rich participants.

The underlying logic is clear: although the new rules may aim to promote fair distribution, in practice, the rules themselves can become accelerators of resource concentration. As the threshold continues to rise, retail investors' participation space will become increasingly limited.

It is recommended that project teams focus on the pressure of score inflation and the health of the real ecosystem, leaving enough room for small and medium participants in the rule design. After all, an ecosystem only involving large holders is destined to go nowhere.