What you’re talking about goes far beyond just imitating Arbitrum or Optimism. Back then, things weren’t as complex or involved as they are today, yet they managed to establish a fair network by satisfying the community. Their success turned this into a “business,” and naturally, greedy individuals didn’t miss the opportunity.
We don’t just have LXP or LXP-L; alongside these, there are many community-focused and wallet-metric-based criteria and data points. If we added up the total duration of events where we earned LXP and LXP-L, it would amount to about 4–5 months. For the remaining time, I don’t know what we, as users, would have done without the community and community projects.
That’s why I truly appreciate the scoring system you’ve restructured by combining the criteria and presenting it with a broader perspective. I’ve tried to explain similar ideas across multiple posts before, but I didn’t have the time to break it down into numbers or organize it into tables like you did.
Of course, variables such as the specific criteria and values can be reviewed and adjusted by the team, but overall, it’s a very well-crafted system.
Do you realize that setting a maximum limit for a real user is meaningless and only helps sybils to get better points while victimizing real users? I have always said and will continue to say that setting a maximum limit means rewarding real users less.
A farmer who does almost no challenging tasks can have 2500 lxp. With the bonuses you give, this man can reach an average wallet.
But don’t forget that this guy has thousands, hundreds of wallets, so it will be enough to combine the rewards of several wallets to get a reward similar to the best wallet, so the difference between the tiers should not be as narrow as yours. thanks.
should also look at bridge amt, gas spent, active days(not months since farmers never skip months and do a tx every month). tx count etc too. mm card is also not available yet widely. shouldnt reward below 200k rank in lxp-l as 0.1 eth can get you in top 200k if u started right away. and i think 0.1 gotta be the bare min.
It seems fair, however, LXP threshold should definitely be higher, around 2000 LXP to identify loyal/organic users. Other than that I agree with your approach. More criteria we have, more precise user can be rewarded. I always support the project a user perspective we should have a difference. Please be noted that max eligible user should be around max 300k-350k to avoid dust or tiny drop for user who truly deserve the reward and support the project for further phases.
Hey guys! I feel that everyone is speaking about LXP and LXP-L. But no one is talking about natural use of Linea Blockchain aka onchain activity. We all know that a lot of users used the chain only when there were a campaign for LXP, left and came again when another campaign started. I believe the team could also use as a multiplier unique days/weeks, maybe volume(they could input a minimum here, and not give bigger multiplier to maximum, because not everyone is rich), unique days, and any other criteria they think is suited. I think multiplier for efrog n is way to high. There are only 2015 efrogs and I do remember back in time that there were under 1000 holders, so a minimum 2 per holder, and not everyone could afford their price, not to mention now( is way to expensive for average user). I do believe that for any OG collections a point is more than fair. I really think that Linea should have some kind of criterias that give an advantage to the ones whom used the chain beside the campaigns dates.
I think there is a simpler and more effective way.
Participants before decun, multiplier 1.5x.
Set minimum 2000 lxp then distribute according to the existing lxp ratio.
before dencun can measured by total gas spent or with a time frame tx filter and it can have a point too but 1.5x is too much. I mean it couldnt be that simple with many campaigns and with all these participants
This clearly confuses fairness. Rewards for LXP, LXP-L, the community, and the ecosystem should be calculated independently rather than lumped together like this. Additionally, the weight of the Efrog NFT is disproportionately high. If divided in this way, it’s extremely unfair to those who have participated in LXP activities for over a year, as many speculative combinations can easily outperform those with the highest LXP points.
This is a narrow adherence to logic and is achieved by diluting LXP users. Calculating rewards separately does not affect those who participated in both campaigns. Combining them in this way significantly benefits those who didn’t earn many LXP-L points—they can participate with multiple accounts for deposits without needing PoH, yet achieve results comparable to long-term LXP users.
Criteria like credit card users would be extremely unfair since most users simply don’t have access to them. Plus, using a card contributes nothing to the development of the ecosystem and community as such (buying a burger and posting a screenshot < spending thousands of hours in the ecosystem). You gave credit cards 3 points (users invest $0 into this), while for NFTs, users have to compete, wait, spend money, pay gas fees, fight for whitelists, and invest both their time and effort - not to mention money (even eFrogs have a decent floor price).
One could argue that real people can get these cards, but that’s hardly the case. On OTC markets, services for passing KYC and similar processes are very popular.
I also find the lower threshold for LXP-L farmers questionable. Does someone who invested a modest $50 and held it for half a year not deserve a reward, even a small one? To me, that’s absurd. A linear approach here seems entirely fair.
I’ve seen many articles and tables on token distribution, but unfortunately, most have little to do with fairness and instead lobby for the interests of specific user groups.
In my opinion, fair multipliers would be those assigned to activities carried out before the Dencun update. These were the most challenging and often extremely costly activities. Users had to seize moments of low gas fees and use them efficiently. Plus, I think it’s clear to everyone that the main influx of abusers and multi-accounters happened during Linea Park.
Moreover, identifying these individuals among the broader user base isn’t particularly difficult, and I believe such a cleanup could significantly boost the “points” for genuine users.
As I see in your proposal, you’re the user of efrog community haha. 5 point bonus for efrog nft, I dont think that’s a good proposal. In bonus table, It should be the criteria which can cover the onchain activities for many people, who have less LXP, but are early users and experienced the network from the mainnet early phase, before LXP campaigns.
For example: Do you know how hard to reach 6000lxp and get 5 point. As you view, It’s equal to holding 1 efrog nft. I think it’s not reasonable
Dear team linea
I am a user who has invested a lot of time in linea’s work. But because of limited capital, I really want to participate in the project and contribute to the development of the project, so I can only do the task of collecting LXP, but if this idea is successful, people like me or those who only have LXP-L, despite trying, still cannot receive airdrop. I think this is unfair and inappropriate. There are many previous projects that have failed or developed slowly because of lack of tools to help users. I hope you will reconsider this proposal. Finally, users like us are looking forward to the project and the development team.
trungquy
What a ridiculous allocation proposal! This is completely copying ZKS’s allocation method. Look at what’s left of ZKS now! I hope the project team opens their eyes—this is a very foolish allocation plan!
I can agree give some advantage point for special NFT ,but 5 piont is too much, and most like rat insider airdrop .
eforg NFT and Foxy/croak meme holder, piont cannot base holding during snapshot time .
(Many buy recently for aim airdrop , it should base on holding period)
What do you think if users spend time, effort and money to participate in promoting the project with the above idea we will create an unfairness for LXP users increasing the rate of bot wallets winning prizes
This is against with what Linea team said “LXP and LXP-L are different, and not meant to use together”.So you can not combine it into final criteria it will be fair for all community, when separate LXP and LXP-L independently pool. Example my situation, I try hard to completed as much as mission to earn LXP but I am poor person, I don’t have enough money to join surge campaign. So if this is plan come true I still can get a gift for my efforts in project. I think almost people in community think so. If this criteria occurred it will be terrible. Community will anti Linea due-to unfair.
You should mention the supply that you considered. I agree about the Metamask card as its not available in many regions. Also, rather than Metamask you can add a multiplier for user holding LXP(Not LXPL). That way we will have users not only providing liquidity as well as working on Linea Dapps. If you have considered that metric and most of users qualify then dont investigate further.
