The Arbitrum airdrop controversy stirred its community, with many users feeling sidelined by the allocation favoring large holders and insiders over smaller contributors. This eroded trust, as the governance mechanism appeared to prioritize early adopters and token whales, undermining fairness. Posts on X revealed frustration over opaque criteria, amplifying perceptions of centralization. A more equitable system would require transparent rules, broader voting access, and weighted rewards for diverse contributions. Without addressing these gaps, Arbitrum risks alienating its base, weakening community cohesion, and stunting decentralized growth. Fair governance hinges on inclusive, clear processes.