The water in Crypto Goose City is too deep! As expected, the honest man finally became the sixth son who only ate two bowls of noodles (one bowl of ZKS and one bowl of ZRO). Mr. Huang of ZKsync said that he would follow his rules to determine who has the investment qualifications. Mr. Huang said that only you have it, and whether you are strong or not depends on whether you are from a big family. Mr. Tang of LayerZero is obviously also a smart person. There is a traitor in the team. To resist the outside, you must first stabilize the inside. It takes 2 months just to check the address of a witch. How to distribute the money of the three major families must be discussed internally!
The honest people in Echeng are busy transporting goods and running orders every day, and they have to prove their innocence and cannot cry out for injustice, otherwise they will be put on the blacklist and labeled as a "bandit", and all the BTC and nine barrels will be wiped out.
The "money-pulling" users or studios are the most vulnerable party in the vicious game of VCs pushing up valuations. Project owners need user data to get money from VCs, and VCs need project owners to issue tokens to them to cash out. Project owners are like dangling a carrot in front of "money-pulling" users, using air that may become tokens in the future to get users to work for them for free.
The behavior of "checking witches" is to get user data and ask users to work for free . Users are users first, and then "money-making" users. Games will restrict or even ban gold-making studios because these studios may destroy the balance of the economic system in the game, leading to player loss and reduced income. So, do projects in the Crypto circle also think that "money-making" users will lead to the loss of real users? If so, can it be said that the real users of these projects are also here to "money-making", but their skills are not as strong as those of the studios?
Recently, ZKsync and LayerZero have also been caught up in the "rat trading" storm. They have their own right to interpret airdrops, and the decision-making power is not transparent. Some suspicious addresses often appear, and the official has not given any explanation. Similarly, AltLayer's OG NFT has also been hotly discussed in the community because of "rat trading".
The root cause of the problem is that the community is not satisfied with the airdrop allocation . Retail investors do not know how to make their accounts meet the official airdrop standards, and the official "final interpretation right" will only make people feel that they are behind the scenes. In the end, the airdrops were all given to rats, and the rats sold the coins to retail investors. The remaining supply of tokens is still being unlocked, continuing to dump the market.
In comparison, Uniswap’s previous airdrops were very good. Officials said that as long as you have used Uniswap, regardless of whether you successfully exchanged or not, everyone can receive 400 UNI airdrops. At the same time, holding UNI also has a series of benefits such as SOCKS tokens.
Although this kind of airdrop with no threshold has been criticized, in this era of large-scale counter-purchases and takeovers, it seems that UNI is a truly successful airdrop case.
Why are people increasingly dissatisfied with VCs and these projects? It is obvious that it is the VCs’ greed or investment misjudgment that leads to overvaluation of projects. Projects cannot form a stable business model and can only rely on issuing tokens to let retail investors pay for their problems. Retail investors work hard and are eventually abandoned. When will this abnormal model end?
Kerman Kohli, a crypto researcher who has studied a series of controversial airdrop cases, including Optimism, Starknet, EigenLayer, etc., believes that whales should not get all the tokens just because they have invested a lot of capital, but at the same time the smallest users should get some basic number of tokens anyway.
But these two goals are in direct conflict. Right now, it seems that the best approach for an industry standard would be to implement a tiered system, with slightly less linear amounts (more liquidity, more tokens) allocated to ‘big’ users, linear amounts allocated to ‘medium’ users, and fixed amounts allocated to ‘small’ users. In the meantime, use some rough criteria to enforce this tiered system.
Let everyone in Goose City have enough food to eat, the big families should take responsibility, Mr. Huang should not think about suppressing bandits every day, but control the economy of the whole city, and implement some fairness and democracy. Goose City may not be able to attract more good citizens and businesses.
