Arbitrum like category based distribution

Token Design
1

Hello Linea community. As TGE draws near, I have seen many users who insisted LXP/LXPL are the sole criteria for allocation. Personally, I do not believe a tier structure based on LXP/LXP-L is a fair judgement of contribution to the chain. On the other hand, Arbitrum-like category based distribution is still the most community oriented token design after sybil filtering.

I propose the following categories and each weighted differently in my perspective of contribution importance to the chain.

Let x to be the amount of tokens for airdrop

LXP
30%x reward for early contribution

LXPL
20%x reward for liquidity

Fee burned
20%x reward for OG users (high pre-dencun fees)

Number of TXN
10%x reward for footprint

Number of active days on Linea
10%x reward for dedication and consistency

MEME
5%x reward for expanding ecosystem participation

NFT
5%x reward for degen and risk taking

Wallet allocation = sum(category(user contribution/system total*(n)x)), where n=token weight%

Reasoning:

LXP is what you earn thru activities requested by Linea. It served as an intro to the ecosystem. It’s useful but hardly deterministic in regards to genuine users of the chain. For example, an user participated in all of the campaigns and earned 8K+ LXPs, then left and never touch Linea since last AUG. Yet someone with 3K LXPs has been using the chain consistently even today. If you are Linea, which user would you prefer? Hence a 0.3x weight is more than fair.

LXP-L, it’s unquestionable how important liquidity is to the chain. The hard part is how to balance it so both whales and the rest of the community are fair. I balance this by giving it a less token weight to increase the community activity reward while the whale can still walk with a handsome reward due to the point spread heavily skewed towards the top 1000 ranked surge users.

Fee burn is a major criteria to be consider because of the project has been thru the most expensive of times (predencun, where a single txn can cost $0.5-$1.5) and now where txn typically cost <$0.1. It’s only fair to compensate those who has been with you thru the toughest of times. Hence, this category will see tokens awarded heavily towards OGs before dencun.

TXN is one of the representations of how active a chain is. It’s the heart beat of the chain. I am talking about genuine transactions of course. Spamming $0.01 should be punished. While the # of transaction shows the chain activities, # active days showcase the consistencies of the user onchain. Again, if a user only use the chain to participate on Linea campaign and nothing else, these two criteria will only reward those who durably use Linea rather than farming it.

MEMEs and NFTs are great ways to encourage participation and expands the Linea ecosystem. This is also risky and these fanatics put their money where their mouth is. With such high trusts in Linea, speculation or not, they deserve some community rewards.

Feel free to drop a comment, the best solution is always the one we agreed on. Thanks.

**As always, don’t be ZKS or Scroll, be like Arbitrum and Hyperliquid, community first and the chain will prosper.

1 Like
2

Why Arbitrum-Like Category-Based Distribution Is Not Always the Best Approach

While Arbitrum’s airdrop model was successful, it set a precedent that industrial farmers quickly adapted to. After its success, many large-scale farming operations built sophisticated metric systems to mimic eligibility criteria, allowing them to exploit future airdrop models.

1. Industrial Farmers Now Game Category-Based Distributions

After the Arbitrum airdrop, farming operations began:

  • Systematically identifying eligibility metrics from previous airdrops.
  • Automating transaction patterns to ensure they meet the thresholds without real engagement.
  • Creating thousands of wallets to distribute activity, making it appear organic.

Because of this, category-based models no longer accurately capture real users, they are now optimized for by those who are not genuinely invested in the ecosystem.

2. A Category-Based Model Can Misrepresent True Contribution

The problem with a category-based model is that it assumes generalized behaviors define contribution. For example:

  • If one criterion is “number of transactions,” farmers can artificially generate thousands of low-fee transactions.
  • If it’s “days of activity,” they can automate small interactions to stay eligible without meaningful engagement.
  • If it’s “TVL or staking,” they can temporarily move funds just to qualify.

These behaviors are not a true reflection of commitment to the ecosystem** they are optimized strategies to extract value.

3. LXP Is a More Controlled and Transparent Contribution Metric

Unlike Arbitrum’s broad category-based approach, LXP was designed as a structured, long-term participation system. It ensured that:

  • Participants engaged in verifiable activities that directly benefited the ecosystem.
  • Industrial farmers couldn’t easily game the system by simply spamming transactions or moving funds around.
    Although there was a high sybil activity after the upgrade where the fee became almost non existent attracting a lot of industrial farmers but the team is already taking action through their partnership with nansen in which over 500k sybils were identified
  • This is evident from popular airdrops like zksynk and layerzero where industrial farmers mimic the arbitrum model which can be seen from the highest number of clusters identified
  • Those who contributed at the right time were rewarded fairly, instead of retroactively fitting into a generalized model.

In summary : A One-Size-Fits-All Model No Longer Works

Arbitrum’s method worked before industrial farming became as sophisticated as it is today. Now, broad category-based models are easily gamed, less effective at identifying real contributors, and vulnerable to exploitation.

A structured, transparent, and controlled metric like LXP remains one of the best ways to ensure that real contributors not opportunistic farmers receive fair rewards.
Also with the allowance of up to 20 wallets, then no one will disagree that the only fair and transparent token distribution has to be tired (Hybrid) except for those running a farm

6 Likes
3

Damn, Kanenz, I wish the team give some bonus $LINEA for your efforts at tge. So much impact coming from you on forum. Open minded, fair and logical points as always

2 Likes
4

Hi, given that the SYBILS are REMOVED, which includes industrial farming and spams. If the distribution solely base on LXP (linear or tier) will spell disaster to the community.

The REAL ISSUE is High LXP =/= durable/real users. If the distribution is heavily based on LXP, it will centralized the chain onto the hands of non-industrial (wallet<20) scale farmers. This process is nothing more than decentralized the INDUSTRIAL FARMERS. Is the system more decentralized? Yes, but the bottom structure has yet to change. The distribution to the rest of the community remains more or less the same as BEFORE SIBYLS ARE REMOVED.

Given that Linea has successfully removed the sybils. My approach does not overly skewed towards any specific category. Which is designed with the community in mind. Whereas using LXP (linear or tier structure) completely removes the contribution of 95%+ of the onchain activities and majority of the fees burned on Linea. Most importantly, you just did what ZKS did and killed off the community.

Hence, for activities that are CONTROLLED by Linea (LXP, non-organic), I believe a 30% token award toward LXP is fair.

MY Arb-Like approach

Let x to be the amount of tokens for airdrop

LXP
30%x reward for early contribution

LXPL
20%x reward for liquidity

Fee burned
20%x reward for OG users (high pre-dencun fees)

Number of TXN
10%x reward for footprint

Number of active days on Linea
10%x reward for dedication and consistency

MEME
5%x reward for expanding ecosystem participation

NFT
5%x reward for degen and risk taking

Wallet allocation = sum(category(user contribution/system total*(n)x)), where n=token weight%

Thanks.

1 Like
5

Here is why the Hybrid Model (LXP + Fees) Is the Best and Fairest Approach

The hybrid model effectively counters all false claims while ensuring fair and transparent distribution. It balances structured contributions (LXP) with on-chain activity (fee-based rewards) while preventing manipulation by industrial farmers.

Debunking the False Claims Against LXP-Based Distribution

1. “High LXP =/= Real Users” → False

LXP represents structured, verifiable contributions, unlike generic on-chain activity, which can be manipulated with scripted transactions. Real contributors followed curated tasks that helped grow the ecosystem, making LXP the best measure of meaningful engagement.

2. “LXP Distribution Centralizes the Chain” → False

Once sybils are removed, what remains are real individual contributors who earned their allocation fairly. The real centralization threat was large-scale industrial farming, which the hybrid model prevents by:

  • Rewarding genuine contributors through LXP.
  • Ensuring early users who paid high fees are fairly compensated.
  • Avoiding a “transaction farming” loophole, where bots generate spam to qualify for rewards.

3. “95%+ of On-Chain Activity Is Ignored” → Misleading

Most of that activity was not organic—it was farming-driven behavior inspired by past airdrop models. The hybrid model:

  • Rewards **early adopters who contributed through multipliers **.
  • Filters out exploiters who artificially inflated their activity without adding value.
  • Ensures real transactional engagement is still recognized but not the sole metric.

4. “LXP Distribution Will Kill the Community Like ZKS” → Fear-Mongering

ZKS failed due to poor tokenomics and communication, not because it rewarded early contributors. Linea’s hybrid model prevents this issue by:

  • Balancing fair early contribution rewards (LXP) with multipliers (fees).
  • Preventing **sybil farmers from dominating rewards (hybrid) **.
  • Avoiding over-reliance on exploitable transaction-based metrics.

Why the Hybrid Model (LXP + Fees) Is the Best Solution

Metric Why It Works in the Hybrid Model
LXP (Tiered & Linear) Prevents manipulation, rewards structured contributions.
Fee-Based Rewards Ensures early adopters who paid high gas fees are fairly compensated.
Active Participation Recognized but not over-prioritized, preventing spam transactions.
Prevents Industrial Farming Eliminates sybils while stopping transaction spammers from gaming the system.
Fair & Transparent Based on clear rules from the start, not retroactive gaming.

In Summary
The hybrid model counters all false claims while ensuring:

1.Real contributors (LXP holders) are fairly rewarded.
2.High-fee early adopters receive just compensation.
3. Exploiters who spam transactions do not benefit unfairly.
4. Sybils & industrial farmers are effectively eliminated.
5. Linea’s long-term growth is prioritized over short-term opportunism.

The push to reduce LXP in favor of transaction-based farming is a clear attempt to manipulate the system. The hybrid model remains the most transparent, balanced, and ungameable approach for fair token distribution.

2 Likes
6

Number of active days on Linea
Number of TXN
Fee burned
These headlines are ridiculous. Also, allocating 10 percent to NFTs and memes too much, 3 percent is the maximum. I explained this before. Considering that Linea will have a market value of 1b, you can distribute a thousand dollars to 30 thousand people with 3 percent.

7

Hi, why are
Number of active days on Linea
Number of TXN
Fee burned

Ridiculous? And why isn’t allo based solely on LXP ridiculous? I am just giving suggestions and we can all chime in. There are currently 233602 wallets holding foxy alone, so it is not 30k like you said. Thanks.

8

The thing is, it isn’t fair when you solely based EVERYTHING on LXP. If you read carefully, you masked the contributions by vast majority of the users, and not properly rewarding the REAL USERS. It should never be one category, it is literally the opposite of decentralization. Hence your points are invalidated just by this simple fact.

AGAIN, please see my very first paragraph. This proposal assumed MOST if not all sybils were removed (including spammers). In addition, I said your method “decentralized” the industrial farmers and replaced them with non-industrial farmers. The distribution structure remains the same. The rest of the community do not get properly rewarded. I DO NOT WANT LINEA TURN INTO ZKSYNC. Thanks.

9

There is no need to copy and paste your replies. Let’s have a fair convo of what is community and what’s fair. And LXP only isn’t it.

10

Maybe you can start that by stop spamming the same question on different posts.

11

How are the criteria you mentioned different from tx spamming, my friend? This is not a foxy airdrop, it is a linea airdrop. You can make a nice airdrop to 5 thousand people in 6 different communities with 30 million dollars. While there are official parameters, of course I want them to get more shares.

12

Because according to Linea, they have eliminated most if not all sybils, which includes spamming txn. This is the foundation for a proper community airdrop. Nowadays, a meme coin/NFT does reflect the success of a chain. If you are willing the risk your capital in such high risk asset, you can’t deny the user’s affection to the chain. If it builds a better community, why not get rewarded? 5% is just a number I suggest, 3% is ok too. As long as we don’t have ANY category dominates the allocation (>30%). This is for the wellness of the community.

13

You have to look at the airdrop in the perspective of Linea, of the community as a whole. Not just some 5000 people or 30000 people. We have millions of participants.

14

Maybe you should make a sounding argument, so I don’t have to try to correct you.

15

bro you are the one making useless arguments here, He has already answered all your questions don’t be disrespectful here.
All i see is someone who joined last two campaign and his trying to lobby his interest, there are people right now still mimicking this same simulation…so chill and try to be early next time instead of spamming repeated question which has already been answered.
Also on this

and if you read his proposal carefully you will know that all this have been covered
lxp itself has all the transaction activities, days ,weeks and month, it contain testnet nfts from the largest collection, it contain fees as multipliers, people that started quest from the beginning with high lxps have more than 6 months of activities.
Is is that difficult to understand?

16

All your arguments are countered and made baseless, so i think you should rest now.
people like you join the last 2 campaigns with 100s of wallet now you know the hybrid model will destroy all your expectations and now you are here crying looking for a way to increase your allocation by trying to add your scripted simulation into the criterial…i am sorry the team is smart enough to know this…you can rest now

17

When you check the data everything is clear

572k wallets have less than 3000 lxp
200k wallets have   3000 lxp  and above
`
so tell me where do you belong?
18

4K+, and top 5K rank in LXPL. You think I am fighting for my bag? It’s more like you are defending yours.

19

Your response is exactly what’s wrong with solely using LXP, 6 months of activity out of last 22 months since the testnet. And you call this has all the txn activities. It does not, the txn required to complete all Linea LXP campaigns are far from the total txn on chain. I have 14 months of on chain activity, thank you.

20

I said more than 6 months, dont you understand English ?

image
image1733Ă—782 71.9 KB

For your information if its left to me i will agree to you, but this is a loopehole, i know i beat you in any metric because i have been early… and i can tell you if there is any good model that is fair and transparent it is that of @Kanenz even tho improvement can be made…so please rest, all i see in your messages are just lies and contradictions, your questions have been answered repeatedly…stop spamming.