# Сопутствующие статьи по теме Web3

Новостной центр HTX предлагает последние статьи и углубленный анализ по "Web3", охватывающие рыночные тренды, новости проектов, развитие технологий и политику регулирования в криптоиндустрии.

A Brief History of Web3 Airdrops: A Review of Twelve Iconic 'Rug Pull' Projects

**Summary: A History of Web3 Airdrop "Rug Pulls" – 12 Iconic Cases** The era of Web3 airdrops has shifted from a golden age of mutual benefit between early users and projects to a landscape dominated by systematic exploitation. This article reviews 12 infamous "anti-airdrop" projects that eroded user trust: 1. **Hop Protocol (HOP):** Pioneered a "community witch-hunt" model, encouraging users to report Sybil addresses to claim their rewards, fostering a toxic environment of mutual harm. 2. **Blast:** Introduced the exploitative "points system," locking user funds for meager returns that often underperformed risk-free yields, turning airdrop hunting into a rigged casino. 3. **LayerZero (ZRO):** After 18 months of user-funded gas fees, it implemented a harsh "guilty until proven innocent" Sybil filter, forcing users to "self-confess" or face zero rewards, destroying multi-chain interaction narratives. 4. **zkSync (ZK):** Prioritized "funds held at a specific time" over long-term activity, betraying early contributors who spent significant gas and rewarding insiders, crushing L2 airdrop expectations. 5. **Infinex:** Lured users with NFT and point systems, only to announce a high FDV, a mandatory 1-year lockup, and chaotic rules at its public sale, betraying its community. 6. **Linea:** Perfected user exploitation with endless, grueling Galxe Odyssey tasks and KYC requirements, reducing airdrop hunting to a low-wage, full-time job. 7. **Grass:** Exploited users' physical resources (bandwidth/IP) for DePIN data, rewarding them with tokens worth less than the electricity and proxy costs incurred. 8. **Monad:** Allocated a mere ~3.3% of its airdrop to the community after extensive testnet participation, favoring KOLs and insiders and dampening enthusiasm for new L1s. 9. **Babylon:** Forced Ethereum-style staking onto Bitcoin, causing users massive losses from failed transactions due to high fees and network congestion, damaging trust in L2s. 10. **Backpack:** Encouraged massive trading volume for points, then applied strict KYC and Sybil rules last minute, resulting in massive losses for users and cementing a negative stereotype for projects with Chinese founders. 11. **EdgeX:** Perpetual DEX users lost significant fees for minimal rewards, while "insider" addresses received enormous allocations, exposing blatant corruption and killing the Perp DEX airdrop narrative. 12. **Genius:** The final straw: users were forced to choose between immediately claiming only 30% of their airdrop, locking tokens for a year for 100%, or a 100% burn for a gas fee refund, shattering trust in "elite-backed" narratives. **Conclusion** marks the painful end of the airdrop era. This collective "rug pull" was a co-created disaster of speculation and greed. The collapse, while brutal, forces a return to fundamentals: sustainable products with real product-market fit are paramount. This is not just the end of airdrops but a potential rebirth for Web3, weeding out exploitative projects and rewarding those that build genuine community value.

marsbit8 ч. назад

A Brief History of Web3 Airdrops: A Review of Twelve Iconic 'Rug Pull' Projects

marsbit8 ч. назад

Six-Year Evolution of Web3 Airdrops: From Uniswap to Monad, How Should Ordinary People Properly 'Farm Airdrops' in 2026?

Web3 airdrops have evolved significantly from Uniswap's 2020 genesis event, where early users were simply rewarded for protocol usage, to complex systems emphasizing genuine participation, identity verification, and attention economics. Key phases include: - **Phase 1 (2020)**: DeFi airdrops like Uniswap, with no Sybil resistance or tasks—pure reward for usage. - **Phase 2 (2021)**: ENS introduced the concept of "users as shareholders," focusing on governance and contribution. - **Phase 3 (2022-2023)**: Airdrops became growth hacking tools (e.g., Aptos, Arbitrum, Celestia), using multi-tier scoring and cross-ecosystem criteria. - **Phase 4 (2024-2026)**: Points systems (e.g., Blast, EigenLayer) prioritize TVL, duration, and liquidity locking over transaction volume. Future trends indicate: - Chain-level airdrops are declining; ecosystem-level airdrops (e.g., restaking, lending) will dominate. - Rising capital requirements and AI-driven allocation using on-chain reputation and behavior analysis. - A shift from rewards to attention economics, where community influence and identity matter most. For 2026, focus on: - Technical contributions (e.g., testnet nodes). - Completed quests and points systems. - Active community engagement (Discord, social media). - Long-term participation and identity building. Airdrops are no longer just token distributions but tools for user acquisition, governance, and community building. Success requires strategy升级: avoid meaningless farming, contribute value, and maintain a persistent, authentic presence.

marsbit04/09 03:13

Six-Year Evolution of Web3 Airdrops: From Uniswap to Monad, How Should Ordinary People Properly 'Farm Airdrops' in 2026?

marsbit04/09 03:13

Prediction Markets Plunge into Major Controversy Again: Are You Trading Facts or Rules?

The prediction market sector, particularly platforms like Polymarket and Predict.fun, is facing significant controversy over event resolution rules that sometimes conflict with user expectations. Two recent cases highlight the issue. First, on Polymarket, a market asking “Will US forces enter Iran by a certain date?” was resolved as “Yes” after US special forces entered Iranian territory to rescue a downed pilot. While the rules technically defined such an operational entry as a qualifying "invasion," many users argued it contradicted the common-sense understanding of a military invasion, as the action was a limited humanitarian rescue, not a combat operation. Second, on Predict.fun, a market on “Will Polymarket launch a token?” was resolved as “Yes” after the platform announced a new stablecoin, Polymarket USD, pegged 1:1 to USDC. The rules defined a "token" as any fungible asset, but the community debated whether a stablecoin—a collateral tool rather than a governance or equity token—should truly count as the "launch" users were predicting, especially for a subsequent market on the project’s Fully Diluted Valuation (FDV). The core conflict is whether users are betting on real-world events or a platform’s specific, often technical, rules. These cases show that a high-probability bet can quickly become a loss if the rules are misinterpreted. The key takeaway for participants is to prioritize understanding the precise, written rules over their own assumptions to avoid unexpected outcomes.

marsbit04/08 03:37

Prediction Markets Plunge into Major Controversy Again: Are You Trading Facts or Rules?

marsbit04/08 03:37

Prediction Markets Plunge into Major Controversy Again: Are You Trading Facts or Rules?

The prediction market sector, particularly in Web3, is facing significant controversy over the interpretation of event outcomes versus predefined rules. Two recent high-profile cases highlight this tension. On Polymarket, a market asking "Will US forces enter Iran by a certain date?" was settled as "Yes" after US special operations troops entered Iranian territory to rescue a downed pilot. While the rules explicitly qualified such operational entries—including humanitarian missions—as valid, many users argued that a limited, rescue-focused operation should not be considered an "invasion," contradicting common understanding. On Predict.fun, a market asking if Polymarket would "launch a token" was triggered when the platform introduced a native stablecoin, Polymarket USD, pegged 1:1 to USDC. The rules defined "token" broadly as any fungible asset, but critics argued that issuing a stablecoin—a collateralized utility token—should not count as a "token launch," which is typically associated with governance or equity tokens. This raised questions about whether the outcome reflected market expectations about valuation (FDV) or merely technical rule compliance. The core issue is whether participants are betting on real-world events or narrowly defined rules. These cases show that even high-probability markets can become "lose-everything" scenarios if rule nuances are overlooked. Understanding the rules—including definitions, exceptions, and interpretation boundaries—is crucial, as outcomes often hinge on technicalities rather than intuitive reality.

Odaily星球日报04/08 03:30

Prediction Markets Plunge into Major Controversy Again: Are You Trading Facts or Rules?

Odaily星球日报04/08 03:30

活动图片