Berachain Airdrop overturned: Who is harvesting, who is being cut?

Airdrop, as a common marketing and user acquisition strategy in the cryptocurrency field, was once popular because of its "zero-fight" attributes and wealth-making effect. However, recently, airdrops have gradually evolved from the synonym of the "myth of getting rich" to a controversial game field. The crisis of trust between the project party and the user, the imbalance of distribution mechanisms, the proliferation of witch attacks, and the survival dilemma of the Maozhu Party, together constitute the complex picture of the current airdrop ecology. This article will take the Berachain incident as the core case, combine controversies such as ZKsync and LayerZero to explore the root causes of distribution imbalance in the Web3 airdrop ecosystem, the chain reaction of user backlash, and the deep contradictions behind the collapse of trust.

**1. The distribution of the project party is imbalanced, and the user

goes from "harvest" to "cut"**

1. Capital-dominated distribution logic

Taking the recently controversial Berachain airdrop as an example, its total airdrop accounts for 15.8% of the initial supply, but test network users only earn 1.65%, while NFT holders account for 6.9%. Six NFT major players divided US$306 million through scarce series NFTs. Yuan token, the maximum income of a single address is US$55.77 million. Similar phenomena are equally significant in ZKsync: 1.3% of addresses (about 9203) receive 23.9% of token shares, with a minimum and maximum reward of 100 times. This "rich and poor gap" exposes two major problems of the airdrop mechanism:

Resources are tilted towards capital: NFT holders are mostly investors with strong early stage funds, while test network users that contribute to the activity on the chain become "low-income insurance" (such as Berachain test network users' per capita income is less than US$1).

Rules black boxing: Berachain has not disclosed the airdrop algorithm dashboard, ZKsync has been questioned for allocating tokens to Pudgy Penguins NFT holders who have not participated in the ecosystem. The ambiguity of rules has breeds "rat-staffing" 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 "funding retention time" and "risk asset allocation" as core indicators: providing liquidity to DEX can receive double bonuses and hold high Users of risk tokens or NFTs enjoy multiplier rewards. Although this shift suppresses witch attacks, it leads to the ineffective incentives of ordinary users, forming a vicious cycle of "the higher the capital threshold, the richer the returns."

2. Users go from "hair-picking carnival" to "trust collapse "

• Expected failure and liquidity trap

Income inversion: Berachain Lumao Studio invested millions of test website addresses to get only a thousand tokens (valued at about 10,000 US dollars), and pre-deposit users were forced to lock their positions for three months, and they had to bear a 2% loss in advance. Sarcastic means "rebellion".

The selling wave spread: Only 19.3% of ZKsync's airdrop address continue to hold tokens, and 80% of the sell-off caused a plummeting main network activity; the cross-chain transaction volume of Stargate Finance of LayerZero ecosystem dropped by 75% after airdrop, highlighting that the airdrop became "one time" sexual traffic tools”.

• The spread of the craziness of trust

Rules are double standards: ZKsync Lite users are disqualified for not participating in Era interactions, while partner Aave receives 0.5% tokens (worth $20 million), far exceeding their public financing.

Technical idealism goes bankrupt: Although Berachain launched an innovative PoL mechanism and a dual token model (BERA/BGT), the distribution dispute revealed that if the economic model is deviated from fairness, technological innovation will become a "fig leaf" for centralized control.

• The cost of "inaccurate 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 try to balance security and fairness, but bioverification and KYC have caused privacy controversy and are trapped in "decentralized" The trivial dilemma of transforming identity”.

3. The survival dilemma of the hair-beating party

With the evolution of the Web3 airdrop ecosystem, the living environment of the Maolu Party (i.e., users who participate in airdrops for multiple projects to obtain token rewards) is becoming increasingly severe. The former low-cost and high-return strategies have gradually failed, replaced by high costs, complex rules and opaque project-side operations.

• "High-frequency interaction of small funds" has failed to turn into "high-cost game"

The early Maozhuan party maximized the airdrop income by creating addresses in batches and low-cost interactions (such as small transactions and cross-chain operations). However, with the project party's adjustment of airdrop rules, a single address requires large amounts of funds to be retained for a long time. The cost far exceeds the benefits (some users' handling fees are even higher than the airdrop value). Taking ZKsync as an example, the project party takes "fund retention time" and "risk asset allocation" as core indicators, requiring users to hold large amounts of funds for a long time or provide liquidity. This greatly increases the cost of a single address, but the benefits may not necessarily cover investment.

• Depreciate the interactive value

The weight of traditional high-frequency interaction behaviors (such as transactions and cross-chain) in airdrops is reduced, making it difficult for ordinary users to obtain considerable benefits through low-cost operations. On the contrary, well-capitalized users receive higher rewards by holding high-risk assets or NFTs, making ordinary users less and less profitable.

**4. The way to break the deadlock: Reconstructing the fairness

consensus**

At present, airdrops seem to be in a dilemma. The traditional airdrop model is often simple and crude, using the number of addresses or the amount of coins held as the only standard, ignoring the user's true contribution and long-term value to the project. This kind of "money-spreading" airdrop not only makes it difficult to attract target users, but also promotes speculative behavior and deviates from the original intention of project development.

To reconstruct fairness consensus, a more scientific and reasonable airdrop mechanism is needed:

• From "quantity" to "quality": Include users' contribution to the project into the airdrop standards, such as participating in community construction, providing liquidity, completing specific tasks, etc., and encourage users to deeply participate in the project ecology rather than simply pursuing address quantity.

• From "one-time" to "sustainable": combine airdrops with the long-term development goals of the project, such as dynamic rewards based on the user's currency holding time and the number of times they participate in governance, and encourage users and projects to grow together.

• From "centralization" to "decentralization": Use blockchain technology to establish a transparent and open airdrop mechanism, such as automatically executing airdrop rules through smart contracts, avoiding human manipulation and enhancing user trust.

To reconstruct fairness consensus, project parties need to be open and transparent to co-govern with community users, for example:

• Algorithm audit: disclose airdrop parameters (such as Berachain needs to disclose the interaction frequency weight), and introduce the rationality of third-party audit verification rules.

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

• Gradient allocation: Jito dynamically adjusts rewards based on the pledge duration and contribution degree to limit the monopoly of giant whales; Berachain can increase the weight for small and 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 returns 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 behavior; privacy protocols such as Aleo can explore zero-knowledge proof technology to verify real-person identity while protecting privacy.

Airdrops are not panacea and cannot guarantee the success of the project. However, by reconstructing fairness consensus, airdrops can become a bridge connecting project parties and users, attract users who truly recognize the value of the project, and jointly promote the prosperity and development of the on-chain ecosystem.

Conclusion

Airdrop should not be a "wealth transfer game, the dispute between Berachain and ZKsync reveals the core contradiction of the Web3 airdrop mechanism: the project party pursues cold start efficiency, users are eager for fair returns, and capital is waiting for opportunities to arbitrage. When airdrops are alienated into "VC exit channel" Or "traffic bait", trust collapse and user escape will become inevitable. In the future, only by allowing airdrops to return to the essence of "contributor first" through transparent rules, community governance and technological iteration can we reshape the trust cornerstone of the Web3 ecosystem. —Let value-creating people share value is the ultimate answer to the decentralized spirit.