I hope project teams can truly understand their users, as those addresses are the real builders and loyal participants. They have been contributing to the ecosystem since its early days, spending gas fees without any incentives or guarantees of security, and sometimes even facing manipulation from the projects themselves. If, in the end, the project team adopts a one-size-fits-all approach and alienates numerous participants, they will be rejected by the community and the market. ZKSync and Scroll are classic examples of what not to do, while the recent success of Movement serves as a great example of the right approach. In the future, we should aim to establish a symbiotic and mutually beneficial relationship between users, capital, protocols, and ecosystems.
In fact, establishing a ranking system is a better approach
1 Like
you know I think the team understands that if you have 2, 3 addresses you are not SYBIL it is worth having more than one address at least for security reasons.
But I can’t imagine rewarding farms with 1000k wallets and there have been a lot of such farms since the LINEA PARK campaign