Believe me, the majority of sybils started their farming journey from week 6.
Just simple calculus: create 1000 accounts on week 6 paying 5$ per each account in fees or create like 100 accounts on week 1 paying 50$ per each account.
Few people had transactions pre-Dencun, you can prove it by looking at statistics on active wallets on dune.
I love your idea on fees spent, but volume? wtf? I’m being in top 3k LXP wallets and don’t have high volume. Linea is not a bridge or LRT protocol which uses volume as the main metric to detect any unusual behavior
True my friend. That’s why I’m trying to save somehow those who were active pre-Dencun but now are faced to sybil abusers who came after huge fee reduction
Thank you for the time and effort you put into your message, but I have two issues with it:
Excluding all users with less than 1500 LXP = that’s the easy way out.
The problem is, I’m certain there are people with less than 1500 LXP who have contributed to Linea by joining the ecosystem during the Linea Park. Should they be excluded? I don’t think so.
What you’re describing is just an airdrop meant exclusively for farmers?
Do you think that any activity other than LXP and LXP-L is not beneficial to Linea?
I believe the airdrop should go to the Linea community, whether you’re farmers, users, contributors, or developers.
I don’t think the airdrop should only go to LXP farmers (I’m saying this, while I’ve more than +6000 LXP)
Study zk model first before you compare, this is the most fair model Here is what zk did instead
—> Top 0.17% = i.e. 10,000 wallets out of 6 mn participants got 25% of the entire airdrop
—> Top 0.83% = Top 50,000 wallets got 55% of the entire airdrop
—> Top 1.67% wallets got 68% of the entire airdrop
The top 1.6% represent a small, highly committed group that contributed significantly to the ecosystem. Achieving those LXP requires much greater effort, activity, and engagement than lower tiers.
Their substantial involvement often comes with higher opportunity costs, which justifies a proportionally higher reward allocation.
Progressive Scaling and Fairness:
The token distribution model uses a progressive scaling factor to balance fairness. While higher tiers like this one receive more per wallet, their share is proportional to their contribution.
For example, wallets in this tier receive 40 times more tokens per wallet than those in the base tier (in the example used less than 1000), reflecting the difficulty of their achievement.
*It is worth noting that this will significantly reduce if minimum * For qualification is set to around 1500lxp
Balancing Inclusivity with Meritocracy:
While the top 1.6% receive 15% of the tokens, the distribution ensures lower tiers are not neglected.
85% of the supply is distributed across the other tiers, ensuring broad inclusivity while appropriately rewarding the most active contributors.
Allocating 15% of the tokens to the top 1.6% is not favoritism—it is merit-based and proportional. This group’s outsized contributions justify their larger share, while the broader allocation ensures fairness for all participants. It’s about rewarding value created rather than simply dividing the tokens equally.
@aeridyne
There was no scoring system at ZKSYNC. Nothing was clear and no one had any idea what to do.
Do not compare LXP with zk criteria. They destroyed the community in general.
We have a scoring system. It was clear how you could earn points.
Dude, you are constantly manipulating…
In Zksync, people didn’t get what they wanted because they spent too much activity and so they were rightly angry because there were no correct criteria.
they didn’t even pay attention to the fee and they mocked people.please don’t underestimate the scoring system of linea.it’s not the same.
You’re right Zksynic distribution was disastrous and the criteria involved significant manipulation. However, this is not the case with Linea. Everything has been transparent and clear from the start. If someone hasn’t fought hard and believed in the project from the beginning they can’t make it to the top 1000. Everyone should respect these elite users, as they earned their ranking based on clear and fair criteria with no manipulation therefore, there’s no reason for anyone to criticize or feel envious of them
According to this proposal, the minimum LXP required to qualify is set at 1,500, which reflects the community’s preference, although I believe this threshold is highly botted. Users who joined before the upgrade should still qualify if they meet the minimum requirement after applying the multiplier.
This design primarily focuses on LXP, given its complexity and the extensive debates around achieving a fair and transparent token distribution.
For LXPL, I believe the most appropriate approach is to reward holders linearly, which aligns with the majority’s preference. However, it would be beneficial to set a cap on rewards for top holders while ensuring a decent base allocation (especially those that supplied liquidity for the 6 months) (not overly excessive). Currently, the limited data on LXPL makes it challenging to provide a robust justification for any specific distribution model.
Additionally, I think it would be a good idea to allocate a small portion of tokens to certain communities that have actively contributed to the project’s growth. However, I strongly recommend that this allocation remains separate from LXP.
Guys, please explain, what difference does it make where this money will be taken from, from pocket A or from pocket B, if both of these pockets belong to Linea’s jacket?
Ah, the classic “pocket philosophy.” Sure, Pocket A and Pocket B are part of the same jacket, but pretending they’re identical is like saying shoes and socks do the same job. Both are important, but you wouldn’t wear socks on the outside just because “it’s all part of the outfit,” right?
I didn’t quite understand the reference to philosophy. The company really does have one budget, so what difference does it make where it comes from if it will still be redistributed and balanced?
It’s about making an objective evaluation. One can compare 5k LXP with 3k LXP, or 200k LXP-L with 100k LXP-L, or Efrogs with Toads because there are certain points where you can directly compare them. But by what objective parameter can you compare LXP-L with Efrogs or LXP-L with LXP in terms of their contribution to Linea? The only way to do that is by factoring in an individual’s personal bias and self-interest. That’s why a separate airdrop pool is needed for each category.
This is my thinking as well, having a 40x gap between what is already relatively high lxp is just insane. The lowest to the highest, even if we are already cutting everyone under 1500 would be even higher and an enormous gap when 40x is already an enormous gap. 100x gap its not right. The amount of effort absolutely does not reflect and is massively distorted. Like if it was actually 40x to 100x harder sure, but we all know it wasn’t.
There will be incredible gaps in LXP-L as there should be, but such insane gaps don’t belong in LXP.
Talking about Arb got me thinking, the maximum gap there was about 20x and its regarded as the gold standard. With LXP, assuming we set the cutoff at 1500, we would then have around a 10x gap naturally in LXP that nobody can argue with that is fully linear.
If we applied only a incremental multiplier of x2 maximum we would have pretty much the same setup. Allowing a maximum of x4 as per my suggestion is a 40x gap right there top to bottom, and 2x as much as Arb’s was. Going beyond a 40x definitely seems like too much. And I also think the bigger the range of the top tier or top 2 tiers is, the more that everyone will have high sentiment.
Also, I went and looked at the dune and literally nearly everyone over 8k has that much because they bought a boatload of nfts. Very few actually earned those points the hard way.
This is a fair distinction to make and why I think regardless of what model/system is used, a bonus for pre-dencun transactions is important. A lot of people did park when it was still high gas and then it exploded at the end in the last 2 weeks when gas was cheap. Those are the most sybil accounts of all is those accounts started at the end of Park with cheap gas only.
The logic and objectivity here is very refreshing.
Nearly every wallet over 8k is a mass nft buyer. I don’t disagree that they contributed, but you guys make it out like they did monumentally more versus even say someone with 4 or 5k, but… they didn’t. They did 2x as much, or they didn’t even at all most of them, they just bought a lot of nfts. And some are acting like 6k is so dramatically more than 5k, but… it isn’t. And it really wasn’t that much harder. Anyone with 5k could have done just a few more things and gotten over 6k for approximately 20% more effort.
Should that net them 100x more when their actual lxp is say 8,000 and another user is 1500? I guess this question may as well be rhetorical as of course you think the answer is yes. I think 100x is much too extreme.
First and foremost, I don’t even have 8k lxp, this is about transparency and fairness, it’s not about me or you. If you must criticise, give me data and facts. You initially gave wrong data to justify your points, you criticise the model saying it is similar to zksynk with is 100% wrong.
Now to address your claims
NFT Buyers and Liquidity Provision:
Those with wallets over 8k, who primarily bought NFTs(as you claimed), did more than just collect assets—they actively provided liquidity to the NFT market, which is essential for the ecosystem’s health.
By spending significant amounts of money on NFTs, they enabled trades, boosted activity, and attracted new participants. Their financial contributions created opportunities for others to engage with the market and grow its visibility.(remember no matter how much you invest in NFTs you can never get 7k lxp) even the team acknowledged the distribution was not fair
Scaling Impact Beyond Simple Numbers:
The effort these participants put in isn’t just about the number of transactions or NFTs purchased—it’s about the value and liquidity they brought to the ecosystem.
Liquidity is the backbone of any market. Without these high-level contributors spending money, the NFT market’s growth would have stagnated.
Effort and Investment Aren’t Always Linear:
The claim that moving from 5k to 8k is only “20% more effort” oversimplifies the situation. Those at 8k didn’t just “do more tasks”; they spent more money, took higher risks, and actively drove the ecosystem’s economy.
The essence of the airdrop is to be fair and transparent not about been selfish and putting our own interests. The same way you argue that 5k to 8k is only 20% more effort, another person can also argue that 1k and 5k is not up to 5x effort but what are your facts? I believe the answer is clearly visible in the distribution. If really 5k to 8k is only 20% more effort I believe the people with 5k and 8k should be close, maybe 20% difference. I have read all your post and one thing I see is you say you have 5k lxp, so for that reason you want that to receive the highest tier but that will be very unjust.
Comparing Arbitrum with Linea distribution requires a complete ignorance of the crypto universe.
During the Arbitrum era, the number of industrial farmers was incredibly small.
Since then until today, many projects have emerged through airdrop and some malicious opportunistic people have manipulated the system with thousands of wallets (airdrop). Do you realise how many years have passed since Arbitrum?
The era of getting rewards by making unnecessary tx transactions is long gone. As soon as you apply the Arbitrum rewarding criteria to linea, there is only one audience to be rewarded and that is INDUSTRIAL FARMERS. I will no longer respond to your manipulations because you repeat the same things over and over again.The effort put in by the users on the Arbitrum cannot be compared to the effort put in on the Linea.
The people on the LINEA have put in a lot of effort. You may not have that effort.
We have a criterion like LXP. No one has tied you somewhere so that you don’t work more.
If it was as you say, the lxp difference between the levels would not be so high. 7K lxp >4K User…
I just want to understand why you are jealous of the reward to be given to the highest echelon? Why does it concern you? Do you think that reducing the number of tokens to be given to them will increase your share 2 times? I’m tired of your selfishness.
EVEN IF YOU HAVE 1 MILLION ALPHA NFT’S YOU CAN ONLY EARN 3,000 LXP, AND YES, THE TEAM EVEN ADMITS THAT NFT’S HAVE AN UNFAIR DISTRIBUTION OF LXP, BECAUSE THE PROMISE THAT EVERY NFT WILL BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE SELLER TO THE BUYER WITHOUT LOSING POINTS WAS REPEATED FOR 1 YEAR.
If you want, I can write an article about people engaged in industrial farming. I don’t know their wallets directly, but their numbers are not small.
Commitment also in its own way was the purchase of testnet nft of each level…Not 20 alpha or 100 gama.This showed that I was setting myself up for a “wild” profit lxp
Only one alpha beta gama and omega.And that is why it was the most scored.
I guess the concern lies in limited % of tokenomics for the 1st distribution, so it’s logical to assume, that if someone gets more, another one gets less.
That’s why I posted a topic called “Study Hyper Liquid”. We shouldn’t fight each other in this long PvP battle, we must insist on a fair % of tokenomics allocated to 1st distribution. Yes, Hyperliquid was something from outer space, near ideal case of how adequate and generous distributions should look like. I guess expecting the same % in Linea is almost impossible.
But guys, theoretically, 20% on first distribution is more than possible. If Linea team promises it didn’t have any private KOL rounds, it didn’t have investors, seed and public rounds, than a part of those 15-20% in tokenomics which usually goes into the pockets of investors might be partially added to classic 7-17% on 1st distribution. This is what we must argue on this forum, not clashing, not blaming each other, but demand the team, not sitting silently and waiting the miracle. I know Linea team is a good example of responsive and consistent entity, caring much about its community, but we are all real people, we all have greed, rationalism and desire to earn as much as possible for ourselves. We shouldn’t be shy, we must ask what we want.
Again, coming back to your message, I personally think that high gap is always a subject to
inequality. Yeah, I totally agree top tiers shouldn’t be rewarded linearly or with a small gap, but 10x difference is indeed too huge even for a small amount of wallets.
My vision is instead of focusing on gaps, we must focus on % of allocation. Imagine 4k LXP holder gets 4k$. And 8k holder gets 10k$. In absolute values the gap is insane, but relatively it’s only 2.5x. I guess you won’t care what the gap was after receiving 10 grand. And this scenario may only be possible due to
a) market conditions
b) allocation towards the 1st distribution
Cut offs, sybil hunts won’t help if these 2 points are destroyed, believe me or not. But it they are satisfied, than you can enter the next stage of punishing sybils and creating a healthy cut off with organic tiers and fair rewards
The point you raised about Arbitrum and the rest of the L2s was good. The whales could easily receive the highest allocation in them. In Arbitrum anyone could secure a large allocation just two days before the snapshot. But with Linea it’s completely different. To be part of the top, I’m not exaggerating when I say it requires 100x the effort and risk compared to other networks. Yet someone now who hasn’t struggled is demanding the erasure of the efforts. If it were as easy as they claim, we would have seen tens of thousands of wallets holding over 10,000 or 9,000 LXPs, and even 8,000.
exactly, why do we have so few wallets above 8k lxp?
No one had their hands tied and could do tasks, try to be top 60 during the entertainment festival, mint nft every day during culture szn or do every minor campaign.
Whenever I heard the words “not all tasks are mandatory, for those you did you will get lxp” “I gritted my teeth” and did the whole thing.
This too is almost the same with what @Kanenz proposed, can you give us more details because you stopped at 4000 to 5000 in your multiplier. Can you give us the complete multiplier. for 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12?
Also according to @Kanenz he said this is just a model which i believe its very good and well detailed, the team can make an adjustment base on the model if necessary. I will like to hear your feedback on this.
One thing i understand is that the model is very good which i believe everyone agree, now the only argument is that the upper tier receive too much allocation compared to someone to 5k, so now if that is the case @dfox should review this and make an adjustment if necessary. @dfox please sir, i will like to hear your opinion on this.
