Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Anatcrypto 🏗️🎙️🎩
@anatcrypto.eth
Judging by the loud cries of millions of sybils on Twitter, zkSync chose the optimal criteria for filtering them out. Is holding $100 in the ecosystem for a year not a fair criterion for a regular user? In other airdrops, it might be POH with a well-established Farcaster or Lens profile. Are you ready for such changes?
24 replies
0 recast
118 reactions
Dave Brights 🔵↑ 🎩🐹
@davebrights
I think the distribution is unfair, the number of eligible wallets are many times less than other tier-1 projects (although ZK got record investments) The ratio between the least allocation and the biggest one (from 914 to 100k) is more than 100x, looks like a concentration not a decentralisation
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Anatcrypto 🏗️🎙️🎩
@anatcrypto.eth
As far as I know, the number of eligible addresses in Arbitrum was the same. The ratio in the Optimism drop was the same. The zkSync team said they love the Optimism distribution model 2 years before airdrop.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
xRev↗︎
@xrev
As far as I know OP and Arb users distribution are very different from the ZKSync users distribution but who cares... it's over. Time to move everything to base.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Dave Brights 🔵↑ 🎩🐹
@davebrights
Yes, almost the same amount like Arbitrum, everyone realized that ZkSync can't satisfy everyone and the criteria "what is fair or unfair" is subjective But it seems that the delta of 100x is too high, and the eligible amount could be 1.5x or 2x larger like Starknet Saying this I don't complain that my 2 low-bank wallets aren't eligible 😊
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
