The Last Time I'll Talk About Backpack, and Also Discussing My Airdrop Farming Principles

比推Published on 2026-03-23Last updated on 2026-03-23

Abstract

The author outlines two primary approaches to airdrop farming (referred to as "撸毛"): a labor-intensive" method of mass participation in many projects, and their own "sniper" method. The sniper approach relies on a rigorous four-point checklist to filter projects and avoid "industrial garbage." The checklist evaluates: 1. **Team (People):** Founders must be intelligent, have strong execution skills, and be genuinely well-intentioned. This is assessed through their social media content and, if possible, personal interactions. 2. **Product (Product-Market Fit):** The product must have a clear market fit, be delivered competently, and the team must show a responsible attitude towards its quality, avoiding releases full of basic errors. 3. **Narrative (Story):** The project should operate in a promising, unproven narrative within Web3 that also aligns with major investment trends in Web2 (e.g., AI). 4. **Timing & Cost (Market Conditions):** Avoid participating when market sentiment is overly FOMO-driven and participation costs are high. If an opportunity causes hesitation, it's best to skip it, as overcrowded airdrops yield minimal or negative returns. Applying this framework, the author explains why they avoided heavily farming the Backpack exchange airdrop: * **Narrative:** They are skeptical of the "compliant CEX" narrative, questioning its unique selling point against giants like Binance and OKX. * **Product:** They criticize Backpack's frequent technical failures, r...

Author: Princess Christine (@0xsexybanana)


There are actually two methodologies for airdrop farming:

The first, I believe, is the Old Dong school: cast a wide net, compete on execution. It's essentially a labor-intensive studio logic, where as long as the cost per account is kept low enough, you go and蹭 (participate in/get involved with) every project. The fault tolerance of this model is extremely high; as long as you hit one epic-level big airdrop, it can cover all the sunk costs of being "反撸" (counter-farmed/denied the airdrop).

The second is my school. Similar to Today Capital's Xu Xin's "Sniper Approach" – heavily invest in research, participate deeply. Use logical screening to exclude industrial garbage from the firing range in advance. (This is also why I say that the projects I'm bullish on might not necessarily succeed, but the ones I'm not bullish on will definitely not succeed. My project research checklist can filter out most of the minefields.)

——————

So what is this checklist? 4 dimensions:

1, Team (People Harmony): Smart enough, good enough execution, good enough heart. None can be missing.

How to judge: Use the founder's tweets to judge if this person is a big brain or just a frontman brought in to只会cx (only know how to shill) and shout slogans. Understand if they are sufficiently humble and nice through offline meetings. Many founders' tweets are so hollow they only know how to shout slogans, lacking insight into their own industry.

For most airdrop farmers, it's relatively difficult to接触 (contact/interact with) project teams. Even if you're a KOL and have had offline contact with the project team, it's hard to judge when the project teams put on their social masks.

2, Product (Geographical Advantage):

Here there are another 3 dimensions. 1) The product itself has PMF (Product-Market Fit). 2) The team's product delivery is到位 (up to standard/executed well). 3) The team has a responsible attitude towards their product.

How to judge? They never release shoddy product versions at any time; they have product pursuit. Look at OKX for example; whether they are delivering an early-stage or a mature product, they never hand over a product full of低级错误 (low-level mistakes) to users.

3, Narrative (Geographical Advantage): Being on a relatively new, un-falsified track, and enjoying an extremely high valuation premium.

How to judge? You need to evaluate whether this narrative has炒作空间 (hype potential) in Web3 and whether it is a capital风口 (hot trend) in Web2 – the hype logic of these two is often synchronized.

This is also why I heavily bet on Openmind last year: the AI + robotics track was a trillion-dollar darling in Web2 and was far from being falsified in Web3. (Although it later encountered an epic反撸 (counter-farm/airdrop denial), resulting in a zero airdrop, but that belongs to a black swan event of another dimension, let's not discuss it here.)

4, Time and Cost (Heavenly Timing):

Is market sentiment extremely FOMO or extremely pessimistic? Is the participation cost low or high?

How to judge FOMO? When your Twitter feed is full of airdrop influencers calling you to farm, and everyone is bullish on the next xxx-level opportunity, and your participation cost is high, you will feel hesitant.

If you feel hesitant, it's best not to participate.

In the current crypto circle, when an opportunity is participated in by everyone, it won't be a big airdrop opportunity. The profit pool of this 1.5-level market simply cannot bear such a large volume. Even if it's a good project, if everyone farms it, a big airdrop becomes a small one, a small one becomes nothing, and nothing becomes a big loss.

——————————————————————————

So now, based on this checklist, why didn't I focus on farming Backpack?

1. Narrative Logic: Pseudo-demand and Regulatory Shackles

I've said on Twitter long ago that I'm not bullish on the narrative of "compliant centralized exchanges." Why did Hyperliquid rise? A large part of the增量 (increment/growth) came precisely from users' tax avoidance and anti-censorship needs. Under an increasingly harsh compliance framework, facing mature giants like Binance and OKX, where is Backpack's moat? Where will its incremental users come from? What is the Unique Selling Point that makes users not use Gate, MEXC, but have to use Backpack? I still haven't figured it out.

2) Product: Lack of Reverence for Product Delivery

I rarely see any exchange's technical foundation as拉垮 (shoddy/poor) as Backpack's. Countless outages, rollbacks, and multiple large-scale user compensations within half a year. The launch of every new feature reeks of carelessness and敷衍 (perfunctory effort). A team responsible for its users should deliver even the simplest feature completely and smoothly, not serve up a粗糙 (crudely) made半成品 (half-finished product).

In contrast, look at Hyperliquid; even in its extremely early days with only 2000 followers, you could hardly see any肉眼可见的 (visible to the naked eye) Bugs (the only drawback at the time was poor liquidity, and it was jokingly called Hyperliquidated).

Early in '24, a friend硬拉着 (dragged me hard) to farm BP. I remember clearly that Backpack was so简陋 (rudimentary/simple) it only had BTC and SOL trading pairs. But instead of polishing the product and enriching the coin variety, they started疯狂拉人头 (frantically pulling in people) with the gimmick of "farm trading volume for SOL ecosystem token airdrops." This typical "growth running ahead of the product" approach暴露 (exposed) the management's extreme lack of operational experience and systematic strategy, purely a草台班 (makeshift operation/amateur hour).

These small observations made me very下头 (turn off/turned off) by backpack, and I一直拒绝参与 (consistently refused to participate in) its airdrop farming.

3) Time and Cost: Extremely High.

Starting in '25, some zero-fee perpetual exchanges began to流行 (become popular). And at this time, backpack started its season 3. Compared to zero-fee platforms like lighter, I never understood why刷分成本 (farming cost) at 0.5u的 (of) backpack was attractive. So even though all my airdrop farming friends were doing season 3, I chose to避其锋芒 (avoid its锋芒 (sharp edge/peak intensity)).

Until later, with BN's强势 (strong momentum) and exclusive support for meme coins on BSC (i.e., when Chinese tickers like "币安人生" (Binance Life) started to爆火 (explode in popularity)), I observed some distance emerging between the Solana Foundation and Binance, and the foundation似乎 (seemed) to have some sense of crisis. I speculated that the Solana ecosystem might nurture its own CEX to counter Binance's dominance. So I OTC'd 100k points at 0.3 (price). This OTC action was a small bet on whether the Solana ecosystem would vigorously replicate/support BP. But it seems now, they didn't扶 (support/nurture it).

4) Team

I lack close observation and understanding of the bp team, so I won't comment much.

——————

My attitude towards backpack has always been relatively objective. Running an exchange is different from shilling memes; an exchange requires an excellent technical foundation and operational capabilities, which Backpack clearly lacks. They cannot deliver a good product, nor do they have the product operation capabilities to operate features到位 (effectively) (like the previously highly-touted prediction market). Even worse, they vigorously developed compliance, putting growth shackles on themselves before they even grew up.

So I currently regard backpack as a meme coin disguised as a VC coin. As a platform coin, I think a 200M FDV isn't expensive either, currently holding). Of course, this is secondary market speculation logic, and has nothing to do with airdrop farming anymore.


Original link:https://www.bitpush.news/articles/7622623

Related Questions

QWhat are the two main methodologies for airdrop farming discussed in the article?

AThe first is the labor-intensive 'wide net' approach, focusing on low-cost, high-volume participation across many projects. The second is the 'sniper' approach, which involves heavy research and deep, selective participation based on a strict checklist to avoid low-quality projects.

QWhat are the four dimensions of the author's project research checklist?

AThe four dimensions are: 1. The Team (the right people), 2. The Product (execution and quality), 3. The Narrative (market potential and hype), and 4. Timing and Cost (market sentiment and participation expenses).

QWhy did the author choose not to heavily farm the Backpack airdrop?

AThe author did not farm Backpack heavily due to concerns about its narrative (seeing regulated CEXs as a weak, pseudo-demand), poor product delivery (frequent outages and buggy releases), and high participation costs compared to competitors with zero fees.

QHow does the author ultimately view the Backpack token after its launch?

AThe author views the Backpack token as a 'VC-backed meme coin' rather than a fundamental platform token. They believe its $200 million FDV is not expensive and are holding it, but this is based on secondary market speculation, not airdrop farming logic.

QWhat was the key signal that made the author hesitant to participate in an airdrop opportunity?

AThe key signal is feeling hesitant when an opportunity is highly promoted by every farming influencer, has high participation costs, and creates a sense of FOMO. The author believes that if everyone is participating, the potential reward diminishes significantly.

Related Reads

Apple Also Has to Pay Rent Now

Apple Pays Rent Too: The Two-Way Flow of "Traffic Tax" and "AI Capability Rent" Between Tech Giants For over two decades, Google has paid Apple an estimated $20 billion annually to remain the default search engine on Safari, a "traffic tax" for a critical user entry point. However, in 2026, the direction of this cash flow partially reversed. Apple agreed to pay Google roughly $1 billion per year to license its Gemini AI models, as Apple's own models reportedly struggled with complex tasks. This creates a unique dynamic: Apple acts as the "landlord" in the established search ecosystem, collecting rent from Google for access. Simultaneously, in the emerging AI arena, Apple becomes the "tenant," paying Google for access to cutting-edge AI capabilities it cannot currently match internally. While Apple claims its new models are "distilled" from Gemini outputs and contain "not a drop" of Google's original code, core dependencies remain. Its knowledge base is refined using Gemini's outputs, and its most powerful cloud model runs on Google's infrastructure. Apple has structured the deal as non-exclusive, allowing it to theoretically switch AI suppliers—a hedge against over-reliance. The future hinges on whether advanced AI models become a commodity (cheap and abundant) or remain a concentrated, scarce resource (expensive and controlled by few). Apple is betting on the former, leveraging its massive device ecosystem to be a powerful, choosy customer. If the latter proves true, its bargaining power could erode. This power dynamic is extending to developers. Apple, Google, and WeChat are all pushing for apps to expose their core functions as standardized "actions" or "intents" that their respective AI assistants (Siri, Gemini, WeChat AI) can directly call. The new scarce resource is no longer just app store visibility, but "being selected by the AI." The currency of "rent" has changed from a 30% revenue share to ceding control over how users interact with an app's functions.

marsbit1h ago

Apple Also Has to Pay Rent Now

marsbit1h ago

Missed the SpaceX IPO? WEEX's "First Trade Protection" Lets You Experience US Stock Trading Risk-Free.

With the excitement around SpaceX's recent public listing reigniting interest in the US stock market, Chinese investors face significant challenges accessing compliant and convenient trading channels following regulatory actions against major online brokers. This article explores the available options, highlighting their risks and limitations. Traditional paths for US stock investments remain problematic. Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII) and Listed Open-Ended Fund (LOF) products, while compliant, suffer from high fees, significant purchase premiums, and a very limited selection of assets. Small, unregulated offshore brokers pose substantial risks, including potential insolvency. While secure, VIP accounts at banks in Hong Kong or Singapore require high minimum deposits (often 1-2 million RMB) and in-person visits, placing them out of reach for most retail investors. The article positions cryptocurrency exchanges, specifically their TradFi (traditional finance on-chain) offerings, as a compelling alternative. Platforms like WEEX are noted for providing access to a wide range of US stocks and ETFs, including SpaceX (SPCXON), through tokenized assets. This method offers advantages such as a single account for both crypto and traditional assets, USDT-based settlement avoiding fiat complexities, flexible leverage, and robust risk management. To attract users, WEEX is promoting a "First Trade Guarantee" campaign. Running from June 15 to July 8 (UTC+8), it features a $30,000 prize pool. Users who trade $500 worth of US stock contracts can qualify for a guarantee on their first eligible trade: 100% loss coverage up to $30 or a 20% bonus on profits up to $30. The campaign is presented as a low-risk opportunity for both crypto natives and traditional investors to experience US stock trading.

marsbit1h ago

Missed the SpaceX IPO? WEEX's "First Trade Protection" Lets You Experience US Stock Trading Risk-Free.

marsbit1h ago

How Difficult is Chip Making? A Division Error Costs 475 Million Dollars

How Hard Is It to Make a Chip? A Division Error Cost $475 Million Chip expert Shi Kan, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and a popular tech creator, explains the immense challenges of chip development. Chips are foundational to modern technology, but their creation is extraordinarily difficult. The journey from sand to a functional chip involves complex design and manufacturing, but a critical bottleneck is verification—ensuring the design works flawlessly before costly production. A single, undetected bug can have catastrophic consequences, as illustrated by the infamous 1994 Intel Pentium FDIV bug. A flaw in the floating-point division unit forced a recall costing $475 million. Unlike software, chips cannot be easily patched after manufacture, making "first-time success" paramount. However, industry surveys show only 24% of chip projects achieve this; over three-quarters require at least one costly re-spin due to design flaws. Verification has thus become the dominant phase, consuming up to 70% of the design cycle. The core challenge is a "verification impossible triangle" between high performance, good debuggability, and low cost. Exhaustively verifying a modern CPU core could take 15,000 years with software simulation, or 30 years with advanced hardware emulation—timeframes utterly impractical for development. Despite being essential, verification is often seen as unglamorous "dirty work," receiving less academic attention than fields like AI. Shi and his team are tackling this by developing an agile verification research framework called ENCORE, based on FPGA technology, to improve verification efficiency and debug capability. Beyond research, Shi engages in public science communication through long-form video content, aiming to demystify chip technology, AI, and computer science. He argues for the value of pursuing "hard and long-term" endeavors, whether in the meticulous world of chip verification or in creating substantive educational content, believing such sustained effort is likely the right path forward.

marsbit1h ago

How Difficult is Chip Making? A Division Error Costs 475 Million Dollars

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片