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

[user1669]

Show me where I spammed? I started a thread. Kanenz replied under my thread. I replied, and I replied ONCE MORE under his thread so the community can have a different take. Two posts, one under each thread, is NOT SPAMMING. If that is a spam, have you counted how many repeated replies from Kanenz with more or less the same content in this forum? I have seen more than 5. I am here for a constructive convo. If you believe my take harms your wallet, you are doing the same to the rest. Thank you!

[Kanenz]

@user1669

I started a thread. Kanenz replied under my thread.

Why do you have to lie when it can still be verified.

[user1669]

He never respond to my question. He just kept on copy and paste of his hybrid approach and claiming it helped to eliminate sybils. I mean dude, Linea handled the sybils. Hence this approach is meaningless. All he did was replaced the sybils with non-industrial farmers.

[user1669]

Exactly! Because I didn’t.

[Kanenz]

@user1669

He never respond to my question. He just kept on copy and paste of his hybrid approach and claiming it helped to eliminate sybils. I mean dude, Linea handled the sybils. Hence this approach is meaningless. All he did was replaced the sybils with non-industrial farmers.

I asked again, why do you have to lie when it can still be verified? Is it that you don’t read?

[user1669]

You sir, responded without even reading my suggestion. Bypassed “Linea handled the sybil” condition and kept on pasting your replies claiming your method helps to rid the sybils. Dude, the sybil issue has been solved, hence your case is invalid. Yet you still have not respond to me in regards to what does Linea want and what are real/durable users.

[Kanenz]

@user1669

You sir, responded without even reading my suggestion. Bypassed “Linea handled the sybil” condition and kept on pasting your replies claiming your method helps to rid the sybils. Dude, the sybil issue has been solved, hence your case is invalid. Yet you still have not respond to me in regards to what does Linea want and what are real/durable users.

I think at this point all you want is attention, I have answered every single question you asked and this will be the last time replying to your message.

[lineaboi]

i believe he is one of those farmers

[user1670]

It is absolutely the fairest model of distribution. There is no proposal that comes even close to the hybrid model. Whoever doesn’t like it is because of personal interest and only.

[lineaboi]

@user1670

It is absolutely the fairest model of distribution. There is no proposal that comes even close to the hybrid model. Whoever doesn’t like it is because of personal interest and only.

I agree with you, non of them are close, all the detailed are covered here in details, the team just have to make adjustment after the filter and make adjustment where necessary…

[user1669]

If you did, just copy and paste it here, thank you.

[user1669]

By your definition, you aren’t? I can show you how much I actually use the chain. Linea is literally my main hub onchain.

[user1669]

It is for one’s sole interest IF the distribution is LXP based only. I proposed an arb like distribution, which is much more comprehensive and well rounded for a multi-use chain beyond LXP, which what Linea truly is.

[MountainXX]

@user1669

deterministic in regards to genuine users of the chain. For example, you participated in all of the campaigns and earned 8K+ LXPs, then left and never touch Linea since last AUG. Yet someone with 3K

and why does he have to paste it here again, when he debunk all your claims, then repliese are all close to your head and the question you asked in the other post? I think you are just a late comer, you have small LXPs, created artificial transactions and you want it to be added… That is why the only model that makes sense to you is the arbitrum model which has become obsolete, linea is not arbitrum

[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?

[user1670]

An arb-like distribution doesn’t make any sense IMO. There is a reason no other project did not replicate it.Arb was under farmed compared to the next L2. Almost zero sybil detection and the airdrop was one of the best so far. Two industrial farmers that were tracked raked nearly 10 million each. We need to be honest after the campaign ended there was almost nothing to do in the chain except trade some meme coins and buy NFTs.So only people that wanted to farm the airdrop used mostly. Do you want to use it as a small multiplier? So be it. But shouldn’t have a huge impact on the total distribution.

[user1669]

So your argument is the ones who continued to use Linea are farmers while you aren’t because there is nothing to do after LXP campaign? You are the definition of a farmer. Buying meme coin and trading is a legitimate use and are functions of the chain. You do realize LXP tiered drop is just replacing the industrial farmers with non-industrial farmers. Which means, the community still gets the dust. This is the opposite of decentralization.

Reasons why no rep are simply because sybil detection hasn’t caught up until now. And Linea x Nansen did eliminated(or mostly) industrial farms/sybils similar to L0. Hence, all arguments here against ARB like airdrop is just defending their own bag. ARB was one of the best COMMUNITY oriented drops. Hence, their community and ecosystem is still one of the strongest.

In contrary, Scroll and ZKscam who abandon the community are not dead chains. If you want Linea to do well, reward to real and durable users.

[user1669]

This entire post is creating a solution to a problem that DOEN’T EXIST, aka. SYBIL REMOVAL. Hence this “solution” became the problem. LXP tiered drop is just replacing the industrial farmers with non-industrial farmers in the top tier. Which means, the community still gets the dust. This is the opposite of decentralization.

So no, he never debunk anything or tried to have an actual convo. He and you are just copying and pasting again and again. Case in point, what you just did. And do read my replies.

[Kanenz]

@user1669

This entire post is creating a solution to a problem that DOEN’T EXIST, aka. SYBIL REMOVAL. Hence this “solution” became the problem. LXP tiered drop is just replacing the industrial farmers with non-industrial farmers in the top tier. Which means, the community still gets the dust. This is the opposite of decentralization.

So no, he never debunk anything or tried to have an actual convo. He and you are just copying and pasting again and again. Case in point, what you just did. And do read my replies.

I promised not to respond to your questions because you lied but let me just clarify some points for the last time.
Your claims are misleading, inaccurate, and clearly self-serving. Let’s address them with facts and logic rather than baseless accusations.

**1. “I didn’t answer” → Again lying **

The response you provided did not address the core issue instead, it deflected and attempted to shift the argument. Simply repeating answered questions does not make it correct.

2. “Linea should follow Arbitrum’s model” → False Comparison

• No major project has replicated Arbitrum’s exact model after their airdrop, because it became a target for industrial farmers who designed systems to exploit it.
• Your insistence on this model exposes an agenda it benefits those who artificially simulated participation to farm rewards across multiple wallets.

3. “Even with Nansen filtering, some multi-wallet farmers remain” (up to 20 wallets are allowed and some will still scale through) → Exactly Why the Hybrid Model Works

• The hybrid model ensures **that even if you have up to 20 wallets or your multi-wallet remain undetected, they do not gain an unfair advantage over someone with 1 wallet **.
• Unlike past flawed models, it ** structured contributions (LXP/L) with fair participation rewards (e. g fees, liquidity and bonus points for early liquidity providers)**, making farming ineffective.

4. “Data Doesn’t Lie – Majority of Wallets Have Low LXP”

• Less than 200K wallets have 3K+ LXP → These are the real engaged contributors.
• **Over 400K wallets hold less than 3K LXP majority been 2000 lxps and below ** → Majority being low-effort or multi-wallet accounts, which the hybrid model prevents from gaining unfair dominance.

5. “You Want LXP to Be linear ? That’s an Extreme Minority View”

• Out of hundreds of discussions, almost no one supports your stance.
  The model only focus on lxp→False
  The proposal accounts for LXP, LXPL, bonuses, and separate allocations for key communities, ensuring fairness for different contributor types.

6. “Comparing This to ZKSync Shows a Lack of Understanding”

• The distribution models are fundamentally different. If you read the proposal carefully, you would recognize why ZKSync failed and why Linea’s approach prevents the same mistakes.
• Your inability to distinguish between models suggests a lack of analytical depth, leading to misguided comparisons.

In Summary: The Hybrid Model Is Unshakable

Instead of resorting to ** misdirection, and self-serving arguments**, analyze the data and the proposal objectively. The hybrid model is the most balanced, unexploitable, and transparent system ensuring that genuine contributors, not industrial farmers, benefit fairly.
If the team decides bonus is to be given for such activities then I suggest it should be less than 5% of total lxp allocation, this will avoid gaming by bad actors.

[MountainXX]

@user1669

This entire post is creating a solution to a problem that DOEN’T EXIST, aka. SYBIL REMOVAL. Hence this “solution” became the problem. LXP tiered drop is just replacing the industrial farmers with non-industrial farmers in the top tier. Which means, the community still gets the dust. This is the opposite of decentralization.

So no, he never debunk anything or tried to have an actual convo. He and you are just copying and pasting again and again. Case in point, what you just did. And do read my replies.

Wait is it that you don’t understand English or what?
I just provided you with all the questions you asked and the answers given to you.
Why are you repeating the same question that has been answered over and over? He has answered all your redundant questions but I’m not surprised because all the farmers will be fucked with this model, even if you have 20 or 30 low wallets accounts you still will not gain excessive advantage to someone with 1 or two accounts, so I personally understand why you are upset on this model, the only model that is a threat to you, what a coincidence but crying here over and over will not change anything.

@user1669

This entire post is creating a solution to a problem that DOEN’T EXIST, aka. SYBIL REMOVAL. Hence this “solution” became the problem

This statement also shows how ignorant you are, maybe because you just joined the server yesterday.
The author of the post have been providing valuable insight and data analysis about this same issue way even before the nansen filter.

@dfox

There is lots of good discussion all over the forum. I’d love to respond in all of them but it’s not feasible; instead I listen and try to guide us towards a solution that is considered fair by the majority of people (accepting that no solution can be perfect). More on this in the coming days.

I don’t personally agree with everything in this thread but the fact that the discussion is happening with thoughtful replies (shout out to @Kanenz as well for the data analysis) is encouraging and healthy imo.

Which is also validated by nansen sybil analysis