From the impressive performance of the Chuanjin IPO, we can see the plight of Airdrops in the crypto world: how to effectively utilize on-chain transparency to reward genuine participants.

In the TradFi market, an IPO ( always allows companies to achieve impressive results with a big pump; however, in the crypto market, Airdrops often fall into the fate of price turns lower after positive open.

Dragon managing partner Haseeb bluntly stated, “Airdrops are dumb, but they can be better.” He pointed out that the key is not to completely abandon airdrop incentives, but to establish a mechanism similar to a “credit score” through on-chain transparency and behavioral data, filtering out true long-term participants to make token distribution healthier.

Why are IPO results always “impressive”? What's wrong with Airdrop?

Haseeb pointed out that the big pump on the first day of a traditional IPO has always been a deliberate design by companies. For firms, attracting long-term shareholders is more important than short-term speculation, so they will offer shares at a discount to institutional investors with long-standing reputations, such as BlackRock or Fidelity.

The records of these large institutions indicate that they will not sell off at the opening, but rather become a stable shareholder base for the company. In contrast, retail investors, unable to distinguish between diamond hands and speculators, can only buy at market price. This differentiated allocation allows the IPO to create a stable pump in the market.

In the Airdrop of the crypto world, although the on-chain transparency allows project parties to clearly see the past behavior of wallet addresses, they mostly focus on filtering out witches )sybils( or farmers )farmers(:

It seems that no one has tried to identify which addresses have the potential for long-term holding and value contribution, distinguishing which individuals are worthy of receiving rewards like small BlackRock and Fidelity.

Airdrop situation: Farmers benefit, real users are neglected

Airdrop was once regarded as the “fairest” distribution method in the encryption field, but the actual results often backfire. Projects spend several months attracting users to participate in activities, but in the end, the ones who receive the most tokens are the “airdrop farmers” who register in bulk and use automation to inflate their numbers.

Haseeb emphasized that these farmers created false activities and immediately sold off the tokens after the token went live )TGE(, frustrating the founding team and demotivating the real contributors.

Even though some projects like Optimism and Arbitrum have designed holding reward mechanisms after TGE to try to attract users for long-term participation, these measures are merely remedial: “The largest distribution usually occurs during the initial Airdrop phase. If long-term and short-term holders were not identified at that time, subsequent incentive effects will also be greatly reduced.”

The mistake made by these allocation mechanisms is trying to predict solely based on users' behavior towards their own tokens. Instead, you should reward them based on their behavior towards previous tokens.

“Holder Score”: The credit mechanism of the on-chain world

In this regard, Haseeb proposed a key concept “Holder Score )Holder Score(”. This is a score system based on on-chain behavior, allowing project teams to continuously track and publicly update user behavior metrics after token distribution, such as:

Percentage of past token holdings over time

Governance participation status: voting, delegation or staking

Actual product usage: payment of transaction fees, provision of liquidity, functional interaction

actual construction or community contribution

Social media data or research engagement

Once this data is made public and standardized, subsequent projects will be able to directly refer to users' past records to determine allocations. This kind of “cross-project reputation” will create a new incentive structure:

Users may voluntarily choose longer-term and more valuable behaviors due to concerns about losing their Airdrop eligibility in the future.

Look at Ethereum: Crowdfunding is healthier than Airdrop.

At the same time, Haseeb also believes that large-scale airdrop should gradually phase out and be replaced by “Crowdsale )”. This not only addresses the issue of airdrops attracting farmers but also establishes a natural screening mechanism:

Instead of conducting a broad-based Airdrop, it is better to refer to the Holder Score, allowing high-scoring users to obtain subscription rights at a preferential price or higher amount during the crowdfunding. Low-scoring speculators would then participate at a higher price or even at market price.

He emphasized that crowdfunding can provide a more sound fundraising framework than Airdrop in 2025, when regulations become clearer. By the way, Ethereum also started through crowdfunding back in the day.

Airdrops do not have to disappear, but must evolve.

In summary, Haseeb hopes that the future token economy should be built on “on-chain reputation”. This allows true users to benefit not only from early participation but also to be continuously rewarded for long-term behavior, at which point the importance of the InfoFi track is brought back to the forefront.

Through the Holder Score and tiered crowdfunding mechanism, the crypto market may shift from the vicious cycle of issuing coins at peak prices to a cleaner and more sustainable distribution model.

(What is InfoFi's new blood in the Ethos Network? Understanding the reputation scoring mechanism and participation tutorial at a glance)

This article looks at the predicament of Airdrops in the crypto market from the impressive performance of TradFi IPOs: how to effectively utilize on-chain transparency to reward genuine participants. Originally appeared in Chain News ABMedia.