Hi everyone. With TGE approaching, there’s been a lot of talk about the structure of the drop. I wanted to share a few thoughts. First of all, the discussions about the need for a minimum threshold (1-2k LHP minimum for qualification) seem very contradictory to me. Yes, I understand that most of the people here are OG Linea users with a significant amount of LHP. I’m one of them, and I would personally benefit from setting the threshold at like 3-4k+ because I’d get more tokens that way. But I perfectly understand that this would happen at the expense of other users. Is that fair?
I personally know people who came from LineaPark, completed most of the quests, and passed the PoH. They spent their time, energy and money only to end up with nothing. Sure, they joined Linea late, but they still came and contributed. Maybe their contribution wasn’t the biggest, but it was still a contribution. Would Linea betray the users it attracted to its campaigns? Earning 1.5-2k LHP was very challenging for newcomers.
A popular argument here is that the threshold would filter out sybils. But didn’t PoH already take care of that? And weren’t sybils also present during earlier campaigns? Back during DeFiVoyage, people were already talking about scripts. So I think sybils wouldn’t have an issue hitting the LHP threshold. Meanwhile,
a real user might not have been able to complete all the quests manually, as some of the tasks were quite challenging at times. Sybil accounts should be filtered through smart research into their actions, not by manipulating the LHP threshold, which feels more like gambling.
Also, when discussing the proportion between LXP and LXP-L, let’s not forget that while Surge program users provided their liquidity, the LXP quests required significantly higher fees, especially during the DeFi Voyage. On my account, the total amount of fees is nearing $100. Additionally, I’ve spent approximately 20-25 hours completing all these quests, which I personally value more than money. A 75%-25% proportion for the LXP and Surge would be much fairer, and with a proper market evaluation of the token, it would still result in massive annual returns for Surge users.
I hope the Linea team will be able to assess the situation and make a balanced decision. Thank you.
You are right, didn’t. It’s easy to make some research and find a lot of sybil topics about Linea Park.
Your motivation is clear when you try to refer to the voyage, but you don’t quite understand what you’re talking about. There were almost no sybil farms there, because A) It was very expensive for a farm, B) Everything worked very unstable, C) Sybils simply bypassed Linea and were concentrated on ZkSync, Starknet, L0 and others.
All this can be seen in the blockchain.
The park could be visited for 5 dollars, when the voyage took away 200 for the same amount of LXP from many. You talk about fairness, that’s good. Then you need to take these points into account.
Your arguments can be turned in favor of the sibyls, as industrial farms have enough resources to not worry about the cost. And the instability of the system actually benefits the software, because I remember how, in frustration, I used to abandon some quests when the transactions kept failing over and over again. In this regard, the software is indifferent in this regard and will keep going despite failures. So you are both right and wrong at the same time, and that’s precisely the complexity of the entire filtering process. It’s a double-edged sword.
I wonder who “you are both” are, since it’s just the two of us (you and me) here. Are you confused by the alternate accounts?
The argument is not accepted because it is well known that the criterion of money and increasing the financial threshold is extremely effective, both in web2 and web3. This can be verified in the blockchain by estimating filters.
Blockquote I wonder who “you are both” are, since it’s just the two of us (you and me) here. Are you confused by the alternate accounts?
Mate, the expression “both right and wrong” means that someone’s perspective or argument contains elements of truth and elements of inaccuracy at the same time. It highlights the nuance or complexity of the situation, where there isn’t a clear-cut answer or judgment. Study english please before making judgements.
Blockquote The argument is not accepted because it is well known that the criterion of money and increasing the financial threshold is extremely effective, both in web2 and web3. This can be verified in the blockchain by estimating filters.
Money and financial thresholds are far from perfect. They don’t stop all types of attacks, especially in decentralized systems. Blockchain helps check some things, but it can’t catch everything. That’s why financial filters need extra tools to work better.
Nothing in this world is perfect, but this practice works. As I already mentioned, you’re talking about fairness, so where is the fairness in giving the same reward to people who built farms across thousands of accounts at a cost of $3 per account to get 1,500 points and to those who participated in early activities and spent hundreds of dollars?
If a method allows us to filter out 80% of malicious actors while affecting 2% of real users, it must be applied. Because, once again, the contribution of the latter is negligible in terms of both financial and labor investment. This is evident.
The fastest, the most active, the hardest-working community members have always traditionally been rewarded more and face fewer risks. This has become an unspoken practice.
Look at the growth of statistics for 1500 accounts in Linea Park. Most of them did not do any further activity. And even of those that did, obvious patterns of automation can be traced
Also most of them are accounts created from scratch and started their activity specifically from the park. Most of them have 0 transactions in the Ethereum network. This is garbage.
There is nothing to discuss here, it needs to be strictly filtered and weeded out.
Real users still have the opportunity to be active and continue to contribute to the development and activity of the network
I strongly disagree with your claim that there were many sybils during DeFi Voyage.
As far as I remember, fee was greater than 8 dollars per each transaction, and we had to make 5 - 6 transaction to collect one LXP task. The fee that I spent during Defi voyage is much greater than all fee spent from all other voyages except Defi voyage. I completed all tasks including bonus tasks, and it made me spent couple of hundreds dollars. There were very limited number of users who joined Defi voyage due to too high fee. At that stage, people would rather join Layer Zero and zkSync airdrop.
I can say this because I subcribed one Youtuber which do airdrop task lively so that subscribers can do it together during the Youtube Live. Whenever Youtuber did Linea task lively, many people cursed this airdrop tasks.
Think about this. At that time,
From Testnet, Linea team officially said there will be no airdrop
Fee was at least 30x more expensive than LZ or zksync airdrop tasks
Whenever LXP is assigned, the portion of my LXP over total LXP. After Linea Park Voyage, my portion is extremely diluted. That is why all early and loyal users don’t like Linea team’s decision that release too many LXP tasks after 4844 as early users could collect LXP up to $2 - 3 / LXP while after 4844 people literally were able to collect LXP with close to zero cost.
Blockquote Nothing in this world is perfect, but this practice works. As I already mentioned, you’re talking about fairness, so where is the fairness in giving the same reward to people who built farms across thousands of accounts at a cost of $3 per account to get 1,500 points and to those who participated in early activities and spent hundreds of dollars?
If Linea allowed users to earn 1500 LHP for $3, it’s not the users’ fault for taking advantage of it. It’s Linea’s fault for creating rules for their own game that aren’t equal for everyone. Moreover, many people created a Linea Park not after 4844 but before, paying not $3 but $20-25 for the same 1-1,5k LXP. Is it fair to them? Why should they be punished? Some people might have completed the Voyage, paying significant gas fees, but later didn’t participated in Linea Park and ended up with less than 1-1.5 LXP. Is it fair to punish them for that? To push your own agenda and make more profit, you’re trying to disregard many real people who contributed. This isn’t caring about the community; it’s caring about yourself.
At the same time, I agree that users who had no transactions other than completing quests should be taken into account. This is a valid point.
Blockquote There were very limited number of users who joined Defi voyage due to too high fee.
Nearly 800,000 people completed DefiVoyage, does it seems to be limited numer of users to you? While only 200-300k users was added Linea Park. Do you really think there weren’t any Sybil farms among those 800k? Just google Swiper, Promint, Ido Research. They all started selling software for farming from Voyage. Testnet was also heavily botted with scrips. 700k participated in the testnet, and you’re saying they were all real users, not scripts? Don’t fool yourself. The real Sybil farms are the ones with the most LXP, not users. Setting a threshold actually benefits industrial LXP whales and a few OGs, but not the real guys who completed some quests after coming home from work.
