Will Blast be boycotted by the entire network during its airdrop like zkSync?
Author: 0xlin
I think the most important basis for judgment is "airdrop ratio".
Yes, unlike zkSync which was boycotted due to unfair distribution, whether Blast's airdrop ratio meets user expectations will directly affect the reputation of the entire network during Blast TGE. (Of course, I think any fud blast behavior at this stage is meaningless, and it is even a good thing for users who are willing to participate deeply in Blast. If we wait until Blast announcesTokenEconomic model, in which the S1 airdrop ratio is seriously lower than user expectations, I think I will also come out of fud and sell Blast Token as soon as possible. )
Why do I think the airdrop ratio directly determines whether Blast is well received or not? The reason is that the matching degree between the airdrop ratio and the incentive mechanism adopted by Blast can directly determine the "pattern" of the Blast project.
The core purpose of the incentive mechanism is to make the "ecology sustainable, developable, and positively cyclical", as illustrated by a picture I drew earlier:
When it comes to Blast’s incentive mechanism, I would like to first talk about “web3The historical process of the "airdrop model".
When Uniswap airdropped 400 $UNI on a large scale, we generally believed that it opened theweb3The airdrop was the first of its kind, and indirectly opened updefi summer, I call it the 0.1 version of the airdrop model. (Note: I don’t think the incentive mechanism for hardware resource mining is a strict or narrow airdrop.)
After that, we saw the airdrop model begin to diversify, such as testnet interactive airdrop, mainnet interactive airdrop, transaction airdrop, pledge airdrop, sign-in task airdrop, etc. Among them, the mainnet interaction and especially L1/L2Projects in the public chain sector are particularly popular and are also the most favored project type by studios.
But when traditionL2之一zkSync完成空投后，很多人认为「大型空投时代」会就此落幕。我个人持反对意见——web3空投玩法短期内绝不会消亡，它只是该升级了，是的，刷TX、烧Gas、项目方防WitchThe traditional airdrop model should have been eliminated long ago.
If the traditional airdrop modes such as zkSync/Starknet/OP/Arb are called version 1.0, then Blast is the upgraded version 2.0. (Unfortunately, many users still stay in the 1.0 thinking, and then reverse fud blast)
Because Blast's incentive mechanism is very transparent:
Users with funds can earn Blast Points, users with time can earn Blast Gold, and users with both funds and time can earn both.
Regarding this point, the Blast official website has already made it clear that according to 50% Blast Points (staking usersXiaobai Navigation), 50% Blast Gold (developer airdrop).
Therefore, if you view Blast as a staking project, you can completely ignore the Gold part and just complete simple tx interactions (double the points); and if you view Blast as a platform, you can also completely ignore the Blast Points part and make good use of the Blast platform to interact with Dapps and earn Gold. (Here I borrow a sentence from @Greta0086 that I like very much: Gold points belong to thinkers and practitioners.)
Therefore, fund staking and Dapp interaction can be viewed independently, and both have made different contributions to the ecosystem.
另外需特别说明的一点是，在传统L2赛道中，L2项目方针对Dapp/开发者们所采取的激励机制是直接以资金拨款（Ecosystem Grants）的方式。
Blast gives incentives to Dapps/developers in the form of Gold (developer airdrops), that is, Blast directly gives Dapps "non-redeemable funds for operation/marketing", and even provides "cold start funds" through the early Big Bang competition.
Therefore, if it is the 1.0 version of the airdrop model, there is no Gold part that can be distributed to users at 100%, or the 1.0 version is distributed to users based on the different operating strategies of Dapps, which is quite opaque. Blast directly uses the good design of the underlying protocol (Points API) to do this.
After understanding this, we finally return to the question of "airdrop ratio". What kind of airdrop ratio will lead to Blast's network fud? —— When Blast Points and Gold are airdropped only according to "one airdrop share".
This may be a bit abstract. Let’s take @MantaNetwork as an example. The airdrop ratio of its first phase through fund pledge (the Points part of Blast) is 5.6%. For comparison, if the airdrop ratio of Blast S1 is:
1) When Blast Points + Gold = 5.6%, the airdrop ratio is seriously mismatched with the incentive mechanism adopted by Blast, and there is a possibility of deceiving users by replacing concepts;
2) When Blast Points and Gold are 5.6% each, the total amount is 11.2%, which is in line with expectations and at least it does belong to "two airdrop shares";
3) The overall airdrop ratio is greater than 11.2%. For example, if each airdrop is 9% and the total is 18%, it is higher than expected.
(Note: Since the time periods of the staking airdrops of the two projects are inconsistent, the airdrop ratio cannot be used as an equivalent reference. For example, the airdrop ratio of zkSync in the first phase of 17.5% seems very high, but the time period is as long as about 4 years)
Finally, let’s summarize:
I think it is totally fine to have both TVL and black slaves (users and time). It is also a smart way for the ecosystem to develop positively. However, the airdrop should also giveCommunityThe corresponding or equivalent ratio of the user.
Fud or not, let's wait for BlastTokenEconomic model.
The article comes from the Internet:Will Blast be boycotted by the entire network during its airdrop like zkSync?
NEAR’s chain abstraction approach aims to abstract away complexity by creating a unified, seamless interface to simplify interactions between different chains.eth,Foresight News With the introduction of many L1, L2 and L3,BlockchainThe pattern becomes...
相关文章
