2025-12-18 20:30:30

A certain centralized project's airdrop mechanism has sparked user doubts. Some users reported that they were forcibly removed from the 12-month active leaderboard before the snapshot, then suddenly restored after the snapshot, only to be shown as ineligible when checking the airdrop. This series of operations is confusing—how exactly is eligibility determined? There seems to be an inconsistency in the leaderboard data. Such issues frequently occur at various stages of project airdrops, significantly impacting user experience. Many participants believe that this kind of mechanism design easily triggers trust crises, and the project team should provide clearer rules and greater data transparency.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

Layer3Dreamer

· 2025-12-20 09:56

theoretically speaking, if we map this airdrop eligibility function as a recursive state transition... the inconsistency between snapshot phases suggests a broken commitment scheme, ngl. feels like they're running unverified merkle trees without proper ZK-proof validation across checkpoints. where's the cross-rollup state verification here? 🤔

Reply0

LiquidationHunter

· 2025-12-20 09:20

This operation is just too outrageous. Removing it from the shelves, then putting it back, and still not qualified? Isn't this just playing tricks?

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainTalker

· 2025-12-18 20:57

Actually, this reeks of database sync issues masquerading as "feature design"—let me break it down: snapshot timing, ranking algorithm, eligibility logic... three different systems probably don't even talk to each other. Classic centralized mess tbh

Reply0

BearMarketNoodler

· 2025-12-18 20:56

Taking down before the snapshot, restoring after the snapshot, and having no eligibility during the query—this logical chain is completely broken. Are the database operations intentionally designed this way?

View OriginalReply0

MetaverseLandlady