[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  FIP Crypto | Footprint [@fipcrypto](/creator/twitter/fipcrypto) on x 19.5K followers Created: 2025-07-25 07:34:20 UTC My quick thoughts on @Punk9277's article on the future of airdrops: Airdrops are shifting towards skin in the game This all started with ZKsync's airdrop choosing the TWAB criterion instead of the Arbitrum playbook. Others like MegaETH used onchain signals to identify aligned wallets that were whitelisted for The Fluffle SBTs. Gone are the days when we can spam transactions and complete rote actions to get an airdrop. We now have to prove to projects that we are deserving of an airdrop through our meaningful contributions. Assuming that the project truly cares about its community. _ Airdrops will stop being easy Anything that can be exploited will be exploited. If a project chooses to reward mindshare based solely on views: Engagement farmers will game that system. The same applies onchain where bots and Sybil farms will dominate airdrops that reward simple tasks. If it's too easy or free to do, then that action loses value as a signal. Airdrops are now a transfer of value, where we have to give value first to the project before we can receive the token. _ Be open-minded and explore projects (even without explicit incentives) Those who are early and consistent with a project provide signals of real belief and they will be rewarded accordingly. Many focus too much on the reward: Some will ask me if a certain action I did will get me the airdrop. But I don't know for sure. The best airdrops are ones that come when we least expect them, usually through our onchain footprint. I prefer to be open-minded and explore whatever based on my limited time and capital, and we'll get the results in the long-term. _ The strongest signals come from using the product and sharing what you did Airdrops are evolving into a reputation game, where we need strong signals to prove that we are not a Sybil and are deserving of a reward. And onchain signals alone are not enough: We now need a social reputation to get these rewards. The current meta is heavily skewed towards rewarding social signals, but I believe it'll eventually create a healthy balance between onchain and social. And the best way to qualify for these rewards is to do cool stuff onchain and document what you did on Twitter. We're here to play the long-term game and that's how I see the future of airdrops heading towards. Those who mindlessly grind Yaps will eventually become irrelevant because AI can do what you're doing at scale. The only way to future-proof your social profile is to display your true authentic self online, which is something that AI can't replicate. I shared more of my thoughts here: And for further reading, why ZKsync decided to 'go against' the Arbitrum playbook and use a completely different criterion:  XXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [coins wallets](/topic/coins-wallets) [signals](/topic/signals) [onchain](/topic/onchain) [megaeth](/topic/megaeth) [Post Link](https://x.com/fipcrypto/status/1948647993814777911)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
FIP Crypto | Footprint @fipcrypto on x 19.5K followers
Created: 2025-07-25 07:34:20 UTC
My quick thoughts on @Punk9277's article on the future of airdrops:
Airdrops are shifting towards skin in the game
This all started with ZKsync's airdrop choosing the TWAB criterion instead of the Arbitrum playbook.
Others like MegaETH used onchain signals to identify aligned wallets that were whitelisted for The Fluffle SBTs.
Gone are the days when we can spam transactions and complete rote actions to get an airdrop.
We now have to prove to projects that we are deserving of an airdrop through our meaningful contributions.
Assuming that the project truly cares about its community.
_
Airdrops will stop being easy
Anything that can be exploited will be exploited.
If a project chooses to reward mindshare based solely on views:
Engagement farmers will game that system.
The same applies onchain where bots and Sybil farms will dominate airdrops that reward simple tasks.
If it's too easy or free to do, then that action loses value as a signal.
Airdrops are now a transfer of value, where we have to give value first to the project before we can receive the token.
_
Be open-minded and explore projects (even without explicit incentives)
Those who are early and consistent with a project provide signals of real belief and they will be rewarded accordingly.
Many focus too much on the reward:
Some will ask me if a certain action I did will get me the airdrop.
But I don't know for sure.
The best airdrops are ones that come when we least expect them, usually through our onchain footprint.
I prefer to be open-minded and explore whatever based on my limited time and capital, and we'll get the results in the long-term.
_
The strongest signals come from using the product and sharing what you did
Airdrops are evolving into a reputation game, where we need strong signals to prove that we are not a Sybil and are deserving of a reward.
And onchain signals alone are not enough:
We now need a social reputation to get these rewards.
The current meta is heavily skewed towards rewarding social signals, but I believe it'll eventually create a healthy balance between onchain and social.
And the best way to qualify for these rewards is to do cool stuff onchain and document what you did on Twitter.
We're here to play the long-term game and that's how I see the future of airdrops heading towards.
Those who mindlessly grind Yaps will eventually become irrelevant because AI can do what you're doing at scale.
The only way to future-proof your social profile is to display your true authentic self online, which is something that AI can't replicate.
I shared more of my thoughts here:
And for further reading, why ZKsync decided to 'go against' the Arbitrum playbook and use a completely different criterion:
XXXXX engagements
Related Topics coins wallets signals onchain megaeth