It’s not a simple 1+1 = 2
2 Likes
simple bro, peoples who get droped LXP from linea event when gas high is the people who eligible for 1,5x boost reward (example from the first intract event), what is the hard thing?
please ban this guy @nakedwinnie , he uses impolite words, and spam too many message
1 Like
bro cant you read? he kept answering your question but you keep nagging on the same thing, what he said is people that participated before cancum upgrade get a gas fee bonus but it is not a constant number and he gave you the reason why
everything is explained in details, everything there is base on statistics from the data not just random numbers
Watch your language and please behave. This space was made to provide feedback to the Team and discuss with fellow community members. Filling this with personal attacks adds no value to the forum. Everyone.
8 Likes
So far this is the most interesting design. I always think that tier based is great since it’s harder to get 6+K LXP within single wallet rather than 1K LXP with 10+ wallet. And here u are my beautiful design. Good work mate 
4 Likes
@dfox I hope you’ve seen this post, the model is very good.
1 Like
The guy just wanted to FUD with no reason
1 Like
So from my understanding in this proposal even though 5900 lxp and 5000 lxp are grouped in the same tier, they only share reward from the same pool but their rewards are linear once you enter a particular tier. So,
someone with 5900 will get more airdrop than someone with 5000
also someone with 5001 lxp will get more than someone with 5000 lxp, the model retain precision.
I think most people do not understand this
1 Like
I have never seen a more greedy set of people than those in Web3. Linea already gave you an opportunity to acquire points by buying NFTs. Some bought as much as 10 even more. Left everyone who could not afford to buy an NFT in the dust.
Yet you still want the team to remove people who acquire their points legitimately because they do not meet a certain threshold?
So the chain is meant to be used only by those people well resourced to buy NFTs or participate in a 2 year campaign ?
If linea wants adoption, removing lower LXP holders is not the route.
Remove sybils yes.
Remove wallets with very limited onchain activity yes (suggesting they are not real users).
Give bonuses based on early usage because gas was more expensive yes.
Give bonuses based on continued usage long after the campaign yes.
But removing people because they are not fully vested here yet participated in some form … Well Linea will end up with a Ghost chain the same way ZKsync struggled after the airdrop. All the people who got the largest airdrops moved their new found liquidity elsewhere.
I have also never heard so many hypocrites as in web3.
People who own xxx wallets, who talk fondly about the ecosystem, only to withdraw funds after tge, and then laugh at the next ghost chain…
The fact is that you have to fight the sibyls perhaps even reaching for the L0 list perhaps even bending the rules of decentralization and going for something like KYC…
And all this for the health of the ecosystem and fighting for viable and engaged users
3 Likes
While your concerns about inclusivity and adoption are valid, the establishment of a minimum LXP threshold is a necessary measure to maintain fairness, transparency, and sustainability within the ecosystem. Here’s why your argument, while well-intentioned, overlooks key realities:
1. The Minimum LXP Threshold Targets Sybils, Not Legitimate Users
The purpose of the minimum LXP requirement is not to exclude legitimate participants but to mitigate the effects of Sybil attacks and farming practices. Data consistently shows that wallets with the lowest LXP scores (below 1,500) are highly concentrated with Sybil accounts. These accounts, often managed by mega-farmers, exploit the system and undermine the value of the contributions made by genuine participants.
By setting a minimum threshold, we aim to ensure that those who participated meaningfully are fairly rewarded. Without this safeguard, the distribution becomes skewed, rewarding those who contributed the least while diluting the value for active users.
2. Participation Has Always Been Measured by Effort (LXP), Not Exclusivity
The campaign was designed around LXP (Linea Experience Points) as the core metric for contribution. It was never about wealth or the ability to purchase NFTs but about engagement with the ecosystem. Users had a variety of opportunities to earn LXP through dApp interactions, transactions, and consistent usage. For example, even users who didn’t buy NFTs could still earn significant LXP by participating in various on-chain activities over time.(Over 20 lxp campaigns were launched within two years, with linea park alone you can get 1500+ lxp)
The minimum threshold of 1,500 LXP is a reasonable benchmark to distinguish active participants from those with minimal or non-existent contributions. It ensures that the rewards align with the level of effort, rather than allowing a flood of wallets with negligible activity to benefit disproportionately.
3. The Risk of Diluting Rewards
Without a minimum threshold, the inclusion of low-LXP wallets dilutes the overall rewards for genuine contributors. Distributing tokens to wallets with minimal activity or effort incentivizes short-term opportunism rather than long-term commitment. This approach ultimately risks alienating the core users who actively supported Linea’s growth.
To address your point about adoption, the true drivers of adoption are active users, not idle wallets. Removing Sybils and setting a fair threshold ensures that rewards are directed toward participants who will continue to engage and contribute, fostering a thriving ecosystem.
4. Learning from ZKSync’s Experience
Your comparison to ZKSync’s post-airdrop challenges is valid but incomplete. The issue wasn’t the exclusion of low-tier users but the lack of mechanisms to retain active participants. Linea is already addressing this by:
- Rewarding consistent and early users (e.g., bonuses for early adopters and long-term contributors).
- Removing Sybils and ensuring fair distribution to reduce exploitation.
- Establishing criteria that encourage meaningful participation, rather than distributing tokens indiscriminately.
This balanced approach ensures that rewards drive engagement and loyalty rather than short-term liquidity outflows.
5 Likes
You wrote the same thing in three different topics just a minute after joining the forum, why are you spamming
@Chinzilla
2 Likes
Because this is a typical abuser approach, can’t you see it from the ideas he promotes?
3 Likes
Oh thank you for clarifying this! I feel silly for not reading properly. That would mean this model would be fair 
1 Like
Yes someone clarified this to me. I apologise. This model is indeed a fair one
2 Likes
Mate, read the post twice before commenting and later regrading.
1 Like
No worries bro,
I’m glad you had a clearer view now.
2 Likes
I hope the team add layerzero blacklisted wallets to the list
5 Likes