seeing lots of hate for the zora token because it doesn't grant any rights to holders

imo this is good actually – we need more experimentation on what tokens mean, in all directions. 

not a memecoin, not a gov token, but an exciting new thing. bullish

This is not hate, just constructive criticism. Zora seems to reward those who bring in referrals or have large followings with significantly higher allocations — people who already have influence and reach. Meanwhile, there's a huge gap between those who minted just one NFT and never engaged again, and those who have consistently used the platform for 3 years, supported it in every way, and stayed loyal to the ecosystem.

It feels unfair that a KOL who minted a single NFT receives a large token allocation, while a long-term, honest user who minted OG NFTs and supported Zora actively receives very little in return.

This isn't hate — it's just a reminder. Projects that recognize and reward long-term, loyal users — without extreme disparity — tend to have stronger, longer-lasting communities. I'm saying this as someone who genuinely cares about the future of the platform.

-Blockchain researcher, involved in all tags. Not a teacher, but a student. &

- tum4y.eth .sol .bnb .apt .moca .lens .g .sui .bit .tez .ons .cyber .ron

Do you really believe allocations have nothing to do with the team or leadership?

Just look at the current state of Starknet and zkSync — check the TVL and the trust metrics surrounding those ecosystems. Starknet ended up rewarding fake and dishonest builders. zkSync completely mismanaged its airdrop and ignored constructive criticism.

You can clearly see the consequences of those decisions on Dune dashboards and other analytics platforms.

How is this related to governance? This is just an allocation question.