zkSync

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?

😨 /fomies 🧐 /etherschool 📔 /diaries 💼 /hodler 🏋️ /gymvibes 🛫 /traveljunkie 🦜 /lingoleague

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

Ex-Chemist, Defi enthusiast, investing popularisator
FID: 191419

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 😊

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.

Regen anon learning and sharing /crypto stuff. /sendit /higher /ethereum /base /data

Looking at the amount of tokens distributed to each subset (instead of the amount of wallets) we have something like this:
- ~78.5% - 2.673b tokens distributed to 183 808 wallets (each, earning 3k or more tokens)
- and ~21.5% - 0.727b tokens distributed to 506 907 wallets (each, earning less than 3k tokens)

It's obvious concentration... https://warpcast.com/xrev/0x398f59fb