Airdrops Won't Make You Rich, edgeX Doesn't Need a Community

marsbitОпубликовано 2026-03-31Обновлено 2026-03-31

Введение

The decentralized perpetual contract protocol edgeX, incubated by Amber Group and backed by Circle Ventures, faced massive community backlash following its token airdrop distribution. Despite earlier promises not to screen out Sybil accounts and to distribute tokens based on points earned through trading, users discovered significant inconsistencies in token allocation. Many users reported receiving vastly different token amounts for the same number of points—some obtained 11 tokens per point, while others received as few as 0.5. Further allegations emerged, including insider trading, with reports that low-point affiliated addresses received a quarter of the total airdrop. The project worsened the situation by disabling comments on its social media channels to suppress criticism. Influential figures like Bingwa accused edgeX of being a "setup" rather than a legitimate project, designed to manipulate and exploit users. The incident has eroded trust in airdrop mechanisms, highlighting the risks of "rule changes after the fact" and the lack of transparency. As a result, user activity on edgeX plummeted, with daily new deposits dropping from over 2,000 to under 50 shortly after the airdrop snapshot. The event raises broader concerns about the sustainability of airdrop-driven engagement in DeFi, suggesting that the era of "airdrop致富" (getting rich from airdrops) may be over.

Author: Gu Yu, ChainCatcher

Last week, the severe backlash from BackPack was still vivid in everyone's minds, and today, another decentralized perpetual contract trading protocol, edgeX, is facing a tidal wave of criticism.

This morning, edgeX officially announced the website to check and claim the token airdrop, with plans to list on exchanges tonight. As a project incubated by Amber Group and strategically invested in by Circle Ventures this year, edgeX was once highly anticipated by airdrop hunters.

Since August 2025, edgeX's trading volume has entered a period of rapid growth. To date, it has accumulated over 470,000 user addresses, a total trading volume exceeding $87.7 billion, and a current Total Value Locked (TVL) of over $360 million. Furthermore, edgeX has generated over $180 million in fee revenue from these trades.

The edgeX team had previously promised the community that they would absolutely not screen for Sybil attacks—'if you have points, you get tokens'—which was a source of confidence for many edgeX users. However, what no one anticipated was that while edgeX indeed did not remove Sybil accounts this time, they manipulated the "points weighting" instead.

Based on community feedback, many users earned the same number of points through trading but received different amounts of airdropped tokens. Some users received 4 tokens per point on average, some only received 0.5 tokens per point, while others received 11 tokens per point. In response, the project team merely stated that points from different sources indeed had different weights.

Even calculating at the rate of 11 tokens per point, their current value is only about $5.5. In contrast, the secondary market price for edgeX points last year was $30-40, resulting in significant losses for secondary market buyers of these points.

What's worse, several KOLs, including He Bi, exposed that the edgeX project team engaged in a 'rat warehouse' situation (insider trading/preferential allocation), where multiple linked addresses with low points collectively received a quarter of the total airdropped tokens.

As community质疑声四起质疑 (questioning) grew louder, edgeX directly disabled comments on its X (formerly Twitter) account, attempting to suppress the spread of negative comments, but it was already too late.

"Why did they change rules arbitrarily, resulting in different rights for the same points? Why delete posts, kick people out, and suppress discussion? Because a project that from the very start intended to rely on wash trading to inflate data, hype valuations with stories, and coordinate with market maker groups for利益输送 (benefit transfer/insider profiteering) fundamentally cannot respect users, nor can it respect the community," said well-known KOL Ice Frog in an X post.

Ice Frog also stated that the most egregious aspect of edgeX is that it wasn't aimed at building a project from the beginning, but rather at setting up a scheme (a scam/plot), attempting to use manipulation and收割 (harvesting/exploitation) to destroy this industry.

Undoubtedly, this "post-rules" handling directly shatters the core premise of user trust in airdrop mechanisms—predictability. Once users cannot evaluate returns based on公开规则 (public rules), the so-called "points farming strategy" loses its博弈基础 (gaming foundation). One after another, large-scale "反向撸毛" (reverse airdrop/being rugged) and "作恶" (malicious acts) events continue to impact user confidence.

In fact, a significant portion of the trading volume and user activity on many yet-to-launch-token DeFi protocols comes from airdrop expectations. The seemingly massive community size and trading volume are built on this foundation. Once such projects complete their token launches and lose the appeal of potential收益 (returns/yields) for users, the false prosperity will quickly crumble. Once the expected returns from trading for airdrops are no longer certain or even become negative, the overall activity of the entire DeFi market could significantly decline.

Taking edgeX as an example, in the days following the conclusion of the airdrop snapshot for this project, the number of new depositing users per day plummeted from over 2,000 to fewer than 50.

After the edgeX反向撸毛 (rug pull), what remains for the market is a series of question marks: How many people will continue to believe in "getting rich through airdrops"? As反向撸毛 (getting rugged) becomes the new normal and large numbers of airdrop hunters leave, will DeFi's trading activity and user stickiness continue to decrease?

When "反向撸毛" (reverse airdrops/rug pulls) evolve from isolated incidents into an industry consensus, the myth of getting rich through airdrops may have come to an end. For participants in the post-airdrop era, protecting the cash flow in hand might be more important than chasing those hard-to-verify "airdrop expectations."

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat is the main controversy surrounding the edgeX airdrop distribution?

AThe main controversy is that edgeX applied different weights to user points without clear prior disclosure, resulting in unequal token distributions for users with the same number of points. Some users received 11 tokens per point while others received as low as 0.5, breaching expectations of fairness and transparency.

QHow did edgeX respond to the community's criticism regarding the airdrop?

AedgeX closed the comments section on its X (Twitter) account to suppress negative feedback and did not provide a transparent explanation for the unequal point weighting, only acknowledging that points from different sources had different weights.

QWhat allegations did KOLs like He Bi and Bing Wa make against edgeX?

AKOLs alleged that edgeX engaged in 'rat trading' (insider manipulation), where low-point affiliated addresses received a quarter of the total airdropped tokens, suggesting the project was designed to benefit insiders rather than the community.

QWhat impact did the airdrop snapshot have on edgeX's user activity?

AAfter the airdrop snapshot was completed, daily new depositing users on edgeX plummeted from over 2,000 to fewer than 50, indicating a collapse in user engagement once the airdrop incentive was removed.

QWhy does the article suggest that the edgeX incident could harm the broader DeFi ecosystem?

AThe incident undermines trust in airdrop predictability, which drives much of DeFi's trading volume and user activity. If users can no longer rely on fair rewards, engagement may decline, and the 'airdrop farming' economy could collapse.

Похожее

When Doing Cryptocurrency Payment, the First Thing is Licenses, What is the Second?

When launching a crypto payment business, obtaining the necessary licenses is the crucial first step. However, the second, and arguably more critical, step is designing a comprehensive operational framework that forms a coherent business loop. This loop must be clearly understood and executable by all stakeholders: banks, payment partners, exchanges, on-chain analytics providers, regulators, and your internal team. Many projects mistakenly believe a single license permits all operations. Licenses merely grant entry; they don't define how the specific business functions. The real challenge lies in detailing every aspect of the workflow. This involves clarifying the customer base, the flow of fiat and crypto assets, the settlement process, and establishing clear lines of responsibility for risks like AML compliance, sanctions screening, chargebacks, and regulatory inquiries. A robust framework must answer seven core questions: Who are the clients and merchants? Who collects fiat and crypto? Who handles conversion and custody? And who is ultimately accountable for compliance and risk management? Projects often fail not from a lack of licensing, but during due diligence when they cannot convincingly explain these operational details. Therefore, beyond securing licenses, the priority must be constructing a closed-loop system. This system ensures the business model is transparent, risks are managed, responsibilities are delineated, contracts are aligned, and the entire process is comprehensible to partners and regulators. The true competitive edge in crypto payments lies not in acquiring a license quickly, but in integrating licensing, banking, compliance, and operations into a sustainable and executable whole.

marsbit20 мин. назад

When Doing Cryptocurrency Payment, the First Thing is Licenses, What is the Second?

marsbit20 мин. назад

Arthur Hayes Analysis: AI Bubble Nears Burst, Crypto Market Faces Short-Term Pressure

Arthur Hayes argues that the current AI market is a bubble poised to burst, which will exert downward pressure on the crypto market in the near term. The core trigger is rising oil prices due to the US-Iran conflict and a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Higher energy costs directly increase the operational expenses of AI data centers, squeezing profit margins for companies like Google, Anthropic, and OpenAI. Hayes predicts that persistent inflation from high oil prices will force Trump, in a bid to win the November election, to turn public sentiment against the AI industry. He may propose regulations and taxes on data centers and AI companies to appeal to voters concerned about costs and job displacement. Such political rhetoric could shatter market confidence. Furthermore, the market is unlikely to healthily absorb the massive concurrent IPOs of SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI, which together seek valuations in the trillions. The combination of soaring energy costs, overwhelming equity supply, and negative political pressure will puncture the AI bubble. Hayes notes that nearly all new USD liquidity since 2022 has flowed into AI, leaving crypto like Bitcoin behind. When the AI bubble bursts, liquidity will contract sharply, pulling down all risk assets, including cryptocurrencies. In response, Hayes's fund, Maelstrom, has sold all AI-related stocks and non-core cryptocurrencies. It maintains core positions in Bitcoin and Ethereum while increasing exposure to energy sector equities, betting on rising oil and gas prices. He expects Bitcoin to bottom after the AI-led market decline, before rallying again with future monetary easing.

Foresight News34 мин. назад

Arthur Hayes Analysis: AI Bubble Nears Burst, Crypto Market Faces Short-Term Pressure

Foresight News34 мин. назад

To C, To B, and the Next Big Thing Called To A

After To C and To B, the Next Wave is To A: Serving AI Agents In a recent quarterly earnings call, Meituan's Wang Xing introduced a new concept: To A (To Agent), signifying that future business services will increasingly target AI Agents as primary clients, not just consumers or merchants. This shift implies that internet giants must now consider how to make their services more appealing for AI Agents to recommend, fundamentally altering traditional distribution logic. This "To A era" is prompting an unusual trend of alliances among major tech companies. Unlike previous competitive battles, firms like Meituan, Tencent, JD.com, Huawei, OPPO, and OpenAI are rapidly forming partnerships. The reason is strategic: as AI Agents become the primary user interface, handling tasks from a single command (e.g., "Book a Japanese restaurant for tomorrow"), the risk for platforms is being bypassed entirely. Companies are positioning themselves within this new value chain. Three primary strategies are emerging: 1. **Super-Entry Points + Service Providers:** Platforms like Tencent's Yuanbao, WeChat, and ChatGPT aim to be the first-stop Agent, integrating various services (food delivery, shopping, travel) from partners like Meituan and JD.com. 2. **Apps as Callable Services:** Companies like Meituan, JD.com, and Uber are ensuring their core services remain accessible and callable by external Agents, shifting from front-end apps to back-end capabilities. 3. **System-Level Agent Entry Points:** Smartphone makers (Huawei, Honor, OPPO) are leveraging their OS-level AI assistants to control the initial user command, redistributing it to relevant service apps. While alliances offer mutual benefit—entry points gain service capabilities, and service providers gain traffic—inherent conflicts of interest exist. A dominant Agent platform could eventually attempt to connect directly with suppliers (restaurants, hotels), bypassing current aggregators like Meituan or Ctrip. Other unresolved challenges include the potential for Agent recommendations to become a new form of paid ranking and unclear accountability for faulty recommendations. The current rush to form alliances is a defensive move by service providers to secure their position before the landscape solidifies. In this To A-driven restructuring, the greatest risk is not losing the race but failing to hear the starting gun.

marsbit43 мин. назад

To C, To B, and the Next Big Thing Called To A

marsbit43 мин. назад

The More Lifelike the Robot, the More Terrifying? Unveiling the 'Uncanny Valley Effect' in the Era of Humanoid Robots

As humanoid robots become increasingly lifelike, they confront a significant psychological barrier known as the "Uncanny Valley Effect," a concept proposed by Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori in 1970. This phenomenon describes a dip in human comfort and acceptance when robots appear almost, but not perfectly, human. Minor imperfections in facial expressions, eye movements, or skin texture trigger a subconscious sense of unease, as the brain detects something trying, yet failing, to mimic a person. Examples range from the controversial human-like robot Sophia to animated characters in films like *The Polar Express*. The effect poses a key design challenge for robotics companies. Some, like Boston Dynamics, avoid it entirely by creating highly capable but visibly mechanical robots. Others, like Hanson Robotics, push for greater human likeness despite the risk. For consumer robots, especially in homes, most manufacturers opt for stylized or clearly mechanical designs to ensure broader acceptance. While the Uncanny Valley remains a powerful force, its impact may diminish over time through technological advancements that achieve near-perfect realism or through generational familiarity as people grow accustomed to interacting with humanoid machines. Ultimately, navigating this psychological frontier requires as much understanding of human perception as of robotics technology itself.

marsbit44 мин. назад

The More Lifelike the Robot, the More Terrifying? Unveiling the 'Uncanny Valley Effect' in the Era of Humanoid Robots

marsbit44 мин. назад

Over $31 Million Stolen from Humanity, Is the Team Behind It Paving the Way for a New Project?

The article reports a major security incident involving Humanity Protocol (H), resulting in over $31 million stolen. The team attributes the hack to a private key leak from a Humanity Foundation member, leading to a rapid sale of H tokens and a 90% price drop. However, prominent on-chain investigator ZachXBT suggests the event might be an "exit scam" orchestrated by the team, rather than an external hack. This suspicion is fueled by the team's controversial history, including past management failures, legal issues, and previous scandals like outsourced technology and problematic airdrops. Further investigation reveals that the core team behind Humanity is already involved with a new project called "Everything," which recently secured funding. This has led to community speculation that the alleged hack is a deliberate scheme to abandon the H project while shifting focus and resources to their new venture, leaving investors to bear the losses. The article questions whether this is a genuine security failure or a premeditated "rug pull" strategy.

Odaily星球日报1 ч. назад

Over $31 Million Stolen from Humanity, Is the Team Behind It Paving the Way for a New Project?

Odaily星球日报1 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот

Фьючерсы