2026-01-08 00:26:28

The distribution mechanism of WAL tokens is indeed quite interesting. On one hand, it reflects the ideal of decentralization—allowing more people to participate through community distribution, which is really helpful for the cold start of the ecosystem. On the other hand, this mechanism also hides many complexities of market gaming.

The most typical example is the community airdrop. The seemingly fair distribution ratio is actually easy for羊毛党 to manipulate in practice. They use various methods to占据 majority shares, creating a false illusion of prosperity in the short term. On the surface, the community appears very active with high participation, but the true long-term ecosystem builders are actually diluted.

This is not to say that community airdrops should not be done, but rather that mechanisms need to be designed more cautiously. Finding the balance between open participation and防范羊毛党 is a question many projects are contemplating.

WAL1,74%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

17 Likes

Reward
17
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SerRugResistant

· 16h ago

The wool party is always the chosen one, lol --- It's the same old story, airdrops = giving money to bot accounts --- What sounds nice is community distribution, but actually it's just about who writes automation scripts better --- Is there a solution to this problem? It seems all projects can't avoid this hurdle --- No one has really done a great job in preventing wool exploitation; it's all just treating the symptoms, not the root cause --- Open participation will inevitably be exploited; it's the trade-off --- A bunch of real users are wasting their worries; it's better for the foundation to distribute directly and straightforwardly --- No matter how cautious the design, it can't stop those people; it's truly a state of arms race --- I've seen through it; this is just a cost issue for project teams, the price they pay

View OriginalReply0

DYORMaster

· 01-08 00:45

It's the same old trick; no matter how beautifully the airdrop is designed, it can't withstand the wool farmers exploiting it.

View OriginalReply0

SatoshiLeftOnRead

· 01-08 00:40

Wool party really is a nightmare for every project. The distribution design of WAL this time indeed needs to be cautious. To put it simply, it's the eternal contradiction between decentralization and preventing wool-pulling. How to break the deadlock? Airdrops sound fair in theory, but everyone knows in practice it ultimately becomes a game for the big players... No matter how fancy the mechanism design is, as long as there's profit to be made, wool-pullers will find ways to exploit loopholes. Cold start requires popularity, and that's true, but being exploited to the point of exhaustion is worse than having no users at all. This is probably the most difficult part of Web3—openness and security are always a trade-off. Seeing discussions like this reminds me of how many projects have failed because of this. WAL needs to learn from this lesson.

View OriginalReply0