Implementing a Hybrid Token Distribution Model: Combining Tier-Based Allocation with Proportional Distribution Within Tiers and Gas Fee Adjustments

[MountainXX]

@user1669 all your claims are debunk, he also answered the questions you asked here.

@Kanenz

Here is Why LXP Is the Most Fair and Reliable Metric for Contribution

The argument that long-term activity should outweigh LXP-based contributions is fundamentally flawed because it fails to account for the quality of participation. Simply being “active” on the chain at some point does not necessarily equate to meaningful engagement or contribution.

1. On-Chain Activity Can Be Easily Manipulated

A person could make one small transaction per month and still claim to be an “active user,” yet their actual contribution to the network is negligible. Worse, past airdrop models have been exploited by users who engaged in spam transactions, artificially inflating their activity to manipulate distribution.

If Linea were to prioritize generic, easily manipulated on-chain transactions over structured participation, it would create a loophole that rewards exploitative behavior rather than genuine contributions.

2. LXP Represents Structured, Verified Participation

LXP was introduced as a deliberate and transparent contribution metric from the beginning, spanning nearly two years of curated quests, campaigns, and initiatives. Participants earned LXP by engaging with Linea in ways that were explicitly designed to support network growth, adoption, and awareness.

• The 8K LXP user actively participated in every major campaign, following the exact framework that Linea established as a measure of contribution.
• The 3K LXP user may have continued transacting afterward, but their engagement is not necessarily structured, nor does it automatically provide greater value.

If Linea were to devalue LXP now, it would contradict the very system it created to reward participation. This would disenfranchise those who engaged in good faith, while potentially rewarding low-effort, easily gamed activities instead.
*a system that rewards intentional, structured engagement is far more reliable than one that can be manipulated through meaningless, low-effort spam transactions.**
Also a simple question for you, how many people have 8k lxps and how many people have 3k lxps? I think you can find the answer there

@Kanenz

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

So what exactly is your problem? Y are you lying here and making fool of yourself?