Linea ran LXP campaigns for nearly two years, consistently encouraging users to engage and farm LXP. If you believed LXP was a flawed metric, then why didn’t you raise concerns earlier? No one stopped you from participating.
The reality is, those who have high LXP stayed committed to the ecosystem long before it was popular, despite high gas fees and uncertainty. Now that rewards are on the table, suddenly calling them farmers just sounds like frustration. Everyone played by the same rules. Linea set the system, and those who put in the effort rightfully earned their place.
I actively participated in all Linea Voyage campaigns, including private testnet, public testnet, and partner campaigns, accumulating 7,523 LXP. However, I recognize that those who won the Linea Entertainment Festival and those who took risks by investing in NFTs also deserve their fair share of the allocation. In designing this proposal, I have made every effort to ensure fairness and avoid bias, striving for an equitable distribution that appropriately rewards all levels of participation and contribution.
You have done a great job.Your summary is as fair as possible considering the tier distributions.
It seems to me that a network that is part of a giant like Consensys already has everything planned and the distribution solution is already in place, nevertheless thanks for your involvement👊
Very good analysis.
I don’t want to comment on everything, I will note one thing:
There was campaigns where people could earn over 1500, and even over 2200LXP in a single campaign!
Thus imo minimum requirement should be even higher than 1500LXP.
Something between 2201-2500 as a minimum.
@Kanenz nice work. I can see you put a lot of effort into it.
Why don’t you highlight the 9,000, 10,000, 11,000, and 12,000 LXP levels? According to your model, these tiers would only receive 12-50% more than the 8,000 LXP level. This seems to underestimate the level of effort involved in reaching those higher LXP amounts.
After carefully analyzing the proposed token distribution model, I’d like to raise a few points regarding potential adjustments that could make the allocation fairer for everyone who has actively contributed to the ecosystem.
Increase the Allocation for LXP Holders
Currently, LXP holders are set to receive 60%, but it would be more reasonable to raise this to at least 70%. LXP represents direct engagement within the ecosystem, and those who hold it should be given a more significant reward.
Raise the Overall Token Allocation
1 billion tokens seems insufficient given the community’s contribution. I propose increasing this to 2 billion and distributing them as follows:
• 50% upfront,
• 50% vested over 12 months or released in full after one year with an interest rate (similar to staking incentives).
Accounting for Gas Fees in Favor of LXP Holders
The current model prioritizes gas spenders, but in practice, most of the benefits seem to go to users with 6,000+ LXP. I personally have 3,900 LXP and have been here since the testnet phase, spending a significant amount on gas fees, especially when they were extremely high. If gas expenditure is to be considered, it should at least apply to users with 2,000+ LXP, as they have undeniably contributed just as much as larger holders.
Better Balance Between Tiers
Based on the current distribution, it appears that the proposal was designed with the 6,000+ LXP holders in mind, as they receive the highest advantages while those below them are left with minimal benefits. This imbalance should be addressed to ensure a more equitable allocation across all levels.
I believe these adjustments would create a fairer and more inclusive distribution model. I’d love to hear your thoughts and support if you also think these changes are necessary.
The 1 billion token allocation is purely an assumption since we don’t know the exact amount the team plans to distribute. The final allocation is up to the team’s discretion but as you said the more allocation the better the airdrop and overall sentiment.
There is no mention in the model that LXP holders should receive 60% of the allocation. This figure is speculative and not part of the proposed structure but the higher the better.
The claim that 6,000+ LXP holders benefited the most from gas fee considerations is incorrect. A closer look at the table clearly shows that gas expenditure was weighted fairly across different tiers.
Factors such as the Nansen filter, LXP overage, and recent security incidents (if included) will impact the data. However, the most important aspect is the model itself—the team will ultimately make the necessary adjustments based on the most accurate and fair evaluation.
It will be better to tag Linea team about your detailed proposal on social media and listen from the horse’s mouth what they are thinking about your proposal. Also, thanks a lot giving so much time to write this well analyzed long thread. @Kanenz
Many of the points you and other colleagues have raised in favor of tiering are valid. However, there are certain aspects that have not been considered in the tiering process:
A user with 1,000 LXP can be a genuine participant but may have started their activity late.
On the other hand, a wallet with over 5,000 LXP could still be a farmer.
Many participants began their activity during the Park campaign, spending very little time and incurring very low transaction costs. However, instead of making significant contributions, they purchased Linea testnet NFTs when prices were at their lowest, earning a large amount of LXP. Additionally, some of them completed PoH verification by purchasing fake exchange accounts.
Therefore, tiering is not as fair as it seems unless:
Wallets that became active on the Linea network starting from the Park campaign—regardless of their activity on other networks and their LXP balance—are completely separated from the early Linea users.
because some hunters use these wallets to farm multiple airdrops across different networks. and others use them to farm only a single airdrop.
Thus, to ensure fairness, these distinctions must be taken into account.
While some of the concerns raised about tiering may seem valid on the surface, they contradict themselves and ignore key realities about how LXP was earned and how farming actually works. Let’s break this down:
1. “A user with 1,000 LXP can be a genuine participant but may have started late. A wallet with over 5,000 LXP could still be a farmer.”
Yes, a user with 1,000 LXP can be genuine—but the lower the LXP, the higher the probability of farming. Many Sybil wallets focused on small, low-effort activity across multiple wallets to avoid detection.
The claim that a 5,000+ LXP wallet could be a farmer is misleading. While anything is technically possible, the likelihood is significantly lower compared to those with low LXP and minimal engagement. Farmers tend to spread their activity thin across many accounts rather than accumulating high LXP in a single one.
Higher LXP requires sustained effort—real engagement across multiple campaigns, high gas spending before the 80x reduction, and participation in multiple phases of Linea’s growth. Farmers do not typically operate this way.
This argument tries to create false equivalence between genuine contributors and likely Sybil actors.
2. “Many participants began their activity during the Park campaign, spending very little and buying testnet NFTs to farm LXP.”
Yes, some participants joined during the Park campaign when gas fees were 80x lower, but this is exactly why tiering is necessary. It distinguishes those who contributed when participation was difficult from those who took advantage of the easier conditions.
Buying testnet NFTs at low prices was a known strategy, but it does not guarantee high LXP. To accumulate significant LXP, users had to engage in multiple campaigns and participate actively. Simply buying NFTs alone was not enough to gain a high-tier position. Example accumulating cheap lower tired NFTs recieved little lxps which were not linearly cumulative
The hybrid model already accounts for these differences. Those who only farmed cheap testnet NFTs without real participation are already filtered out by the tiering structure.
This argument ignores the fact that farmers who focused solely on testnet NFTs were not the primary LXP accumulators.
While those that took heavy financial risk and accumulated the expensive ones were also addressed by the distribution method (In this case they are at disadvantage since the distribution was not linear)
3. “Some users completed PoH using fake exchange accounts.”
This is a separate issue from tiering. Fake PoH verifications are an anti-Sybil problem, not a tiering problem. Addressing it requires better verification mechanisms, not removing a fair tiering system. This has already been addressed by the team team with the implementation of Nansen filtering
The tiering system is based on verifiable engagement. If someone fraudulently verified PoH but did not meaningfully contribute, they will still be filtered by the hybrid model.
Sybil farmers who used fake PoH verification still had to accumulate LXP somehow. If they did not meaningfully engage, their LXP balance would not be high enough to significantly benefit from the tiering system.
This argument blames tiering for an issue that should be solved through better identity verification.
4. “Wallets that became active from the Park campaign should be separated from early users because some are farming multiple airdrops.”
This is already factored into the model. Early users who participated when gas fees were high and engagement was difficult are already rewarded more through proper weighting using multipliers.
Not all Park campaign participants are farmers. While it’s true that some latecomers were airdrop hunters, others were genuine new users who contributed meaningfully. Blanket exclusion is not a fair solution.
Farming across multiple networks is a general airdrop issue, not a flaw in the hybrid model. The hybrid model filters out low-effort wallets and rewards sustained engagement.
This argument wrongly assumes that everyone from the Park campaign is an airdrop hunter, which is false.
The arguments against tiering are filled with contradictions and misleading claims. The hybrid model ensures fairness, filters out low-effort participation, and rewards those who genuinely contributed.
The model is very good, I think it can be improved especially those in the 4k and 5k(Increase) and a little adjustment in the 8k (Reduce) region but overall good model @dfox by refining this idea I think we can have the best airdrop.
As I said the most important thing is the model itself and the ideas behind it, with the lxp overage, recent hack, Nansen filtering and layer zero investigation, the variables will change, but overall the team can make an adjustment base on the new data to achieve a fair and transparent token distribution to every tier. I will like to hear your opinion on this @dfox
Yes, a user with 1,000 LXP can be genuine—but the lower the LXP, the higher the probability of farming. Many Sybil wallets focused on small, low-effort activity across multiple wallets to avoid detection.