📢 Gate Square #MBG Posting Challenge# is Live— Post for MBG Rewards!
Want a share of 1,000 MBG? Get involved now—show your insights and real participation to become an MBG promoter!
💰 20 top posts will each win 50 MBG!
How to Participate:
1️⃣ Research the MBG project
Share your in-depth views on MBG’s fundamentals, community governance, development goals, and tokenomics, etc.
2️⃣ Join and share your real experience
Take part in MBG activities (CandyDrop, Launchpool, or spot trading), and post your screenshots, earnings, or step-by-step tutorials. Content can include profits, beginner-friendl
Today, the airdrop rules for a certain project have changed again, sparking widespread discussion. The new rules have shifted from a segmented distribution to a first-come, first-served model in the Y interval, which has left many users feeling confused and dissatisfied.
According to the latest rules, users with 200 Alpha points can first come, first served to obtain 1500 tokens. However, behind this seemingly simple rule lies many issues. If the tokens are not claimed within the specified time, the point threshold will decrease by 10 points every hour. This means that even users with 200 points may not be able to successfully claim the Airdrop.
This design has raised questions: does it violate the principle of fairness? For users with a score below 200, the situation is even more severe. They may lose the opportunity to claim in just a few seconds, with no need to wait for the one-hour score reduction cycle.
What is even more concerning is that this mechanism seems to favor technical experts and certain opaque participants. They may leverage their technological advantages to quickly seize tokens, while ordinary users may lose out in the fierce competition.
This phenomenon has raised questions about the motivations of the project team. Unless the value of the tokens from this airdrop is extremely low, this design may lead to an excessive concentration of tokens in the hands of a few individuals. Users with scores above 200 may quickly grab one batch of tokens, while users with scores around 200 will divide another batch.
With such complex rule designs, can fair distribution really be achieved? Or is this just a strategy that appears fair but actually favors specific groups? As the altcoin market heats up, this phenomenon is worth the community's deep reflection.
Users are closely watching the development of this situation. After all, in this era of rapid information dissemination, the wisdom and judgment of users should not be underestimated. How the project team balances the interests of all parties and truly achieves fair and just token distribution will be key to its future development.