Author: Mia, ChainCatcher
The once proud way of interaction between project parties and communities in the crypto circle is facing a crisis.
Interaction, on-chain contributions, and airdrops were once the hallmarks of the crypto community.
After numerous airdrop rules, ZKsync dealt a blow to this traditional way of interaction that balances trust bonds with a statement that “all decisions related to airdrop distribution are solely determined by the ZKsync Association.”
Previously, the co-founder of Taiko claimed in response to airdrop criticism: “The lack of transparency in the rules is because transparency cannot resolve disagreements.”
Star project parties seem to increasingly view airdrops as a power of resource allocation – something they can arrogantly use without consequences, rather than a mutual benefit between community users and project parties.
We are concerned that the decentralized, transparent, and fair spirit of crypto is fading away.
Only one-tenth of addresses received the airdrop
Since the heavy blow to the shorting market by LayerZero last month, the crypto community has suffered another setback.
On June 11th, ZKsync announced that it would conduct an airdrop next week and open up airdrop inquiries, providing an answer to its four years of interaction. Officially disclosed, there are a total of 695,000 eligible addresses on the ZKsync chain, accounting for about 10% of the total 6.827 million addresses, much lower than the range of 2.05 to 2.9 million in previous reports on TrustGo.
According to community statistics, 9,203 addresses received 23.9% of the total airdrop amount.
After a full four years of waiting, what was received was nothing but disappointment, with many users showing their unfortunate outcomes.
ZKsync, with its star founders and star capital aura, has always been the white moonlight of the shorting party.
A community influencer expressed, “Some people resigned to do ZKs, some sold their houses to do ZKs, some took out loans to do ZKs, they have permanently lost the qualifications to rise in volume, and have completely failed.” Just like a betrayal after a four-year relationship, “Three years of wages and countless warm nights spent”, only to see the departure of the ZKS goddess.
Association’s independent decision on airdrops
Regarding regular airdrops, the core criteria usually involve the level of activity, duration, and magnitude of funds, but ZKsync’s airdrop rules this time set 7 thresholds:
1. Interact with 10 non-token smart contracts on the Era mainnet.
2. The payer who has made at least 5 transactions on the Era mainnet.
3. Traded at least 10 ERC-20 tokens on the Era mainnet.
4. Provided liquidity to any DEX and lending protocols tracked on the Era mainnet.
5. Hold at least one Genie NFT.
6. Actively engage on ZKsync Lite for over 3 months before the mainnet.
7. Donate to Gitcoin through ZKsync Lite in the previous round.
The excessively stringent rules are not surprising in the ever-changing shorting market, but a single airdrop clause has put project parties in the whirlpool of opaque rules.
In the airdrop claim interface, ZKsync wrote, “Meeting one or more of the above airdrop criteria does not mean you have a legal right or requirement to receive the airdrop; all decisions related to airdrop distribution are solely determined by the ZKsync Association.”
This statement has sparked dissatisfaction among community users, with many users questioning it.
A crypto community user stated, “We can understand the strict airdrop rules, but we cannot tolerate the arbitrary actions of project parties.”
This clause completely disregards the determination of airdrops from the criteria, seemingly leaving it to the whims of the project parties to decide who gets the airdrop.
Furthermore, ZKsync also stated that addresses that meet the airdrop conditions but have less than 450 tokens will have their allocated tokens reclaimed, causing dissatisfaction among some small token holders.
The “rat warehouse” controversy
Although the timeframe is long, and the tasks to participate are many, the community’s expectations for ZKsync have always been high. However, a series of perplexing actions taken by ZKsync recently have raised increasing doubts and questions among community members.
With nearly 10% of eligible airdrop addresses, it means that most of the token shares are held by the project parties. Many users have questioned this move, believing that ZKsync’s actions are essentially aimed at reducing market liquidity and secretly hoarding a rat warehouse. ZKsync currently remains silent on the users’ various questions and has not made any positive responses.
On the contrary, as the rat warehouse controversy escalated, Nansen, responsible for data auditing for ZKsync, began actively distancing themselves.
In an article on X, Nansen officially stated, “In the spirit of transparency, we want to clarify some misconceptions about the ZKsync airdrop. We did provide Matter Labs with data on specific wallet clusters, such as whales or known scammers. However, we did not (help ZKsync) witch-hunt, nor did we provide advice on the distribution of the airdrop.”
Additionally, the NFT trading platform Element stated on X that, as the largest NFT marketplace on ZKsync, they did not receive any ZK token airdrops.
All fingers are pointing to ZKsync itself.
Every airdrop brings joy to some and anguish to others, with a significant number of users successfully receiving the airdrop. Various screenshots of airdrops began circulating on the internet, seemingly trying to prove to the public that “ZKsync’s airdrop is fair and effective, it’s just that you don’t meet the requirements.”
Bankless co-founder David Hoffman also stepped forward, stating that based on survey data obtained from Discord, the majority of people are generally satisfied with the ZKsync airdrop. Additionally, criticisms on the X platform were dismissed as bot comments.
The “ZKsync native project” Zyfi announced on social media that they received 1.642 million ZK tokens, indirectly confirming the effectiveness of the airdrop.
However, most professional shorting parties in the Chinese-speaking community have almost completely fallen, with most studios once again becoming tools.
Anti-rat warehouse operation
As the airdrop addresses decrease and the rat warehouse controversy escalates, the Anti-Rat Warehouse Alliance has emerged.
ZKsync ecosystem NFT project zkApes announced on social media that it has formed an alliance with Element, Argent, WOOFi, and other projects to pressure ZK Nation and Matter Labs to resist rat warehouse trading and other behaviors.
So, will the dual pressure from ecosystem projects and users force ZKsync to make new decisions on airdrops?
The answer is twofold. If they accept the pressure and choose reform, ZKsync undoubtedly acknowledges the existence of the rat warehouse. However, if they continue to maintain the status quo, the ZKsync ecosystem will likely lose most users and developers.
In the airdrop race, project parties and shorting parties have always been in a game of mutual benefit. However, tilting the balance of power towards either party risks endangering the interests of the other. When the weight leans towards the project parties, allowing them to act arbitrarily, the shorting parties become mere tools.
From recent events with Taiko to LayerZero, it is common for project parties to be heavily criticized when airdrops do not meet expectations, and transparency in airdrop rules should be a top priority in the decentralization process.
