The Three Pillars of Linea

Token Design
1

Hello everyone! Honestly, I’m surprised that no one before me has highlighted the topic of token distribution through a comprehensive approach involving three components: LXP, LXP-L, and on-chain activity. Most of the discussions I’ve come across typically propose basing the airdrop either solely on LXP or on a combination of LXP and LXP-L.

The main issue with most initiatives is that they often reflect the perspectives and interests of contributors only. In contrast, I’ve tried to craft this proposal by putting myself in the project’s shoes, recognizing its need to achieve the following goals when distributing tokens:

  1. Ensure maximum decentralization.
  2. Reward active users.
  3. Implement a fair scaling of rewards based on contributions.
  4. Effectively mitigate the impact of Sybil attacks, particularly industrial-scale farming, and ideally medium-to-small clusters as well.
  5. Balance the interests of the project with those of all contributors.

In my opinion, the value and contribution of a participant to the project’s ecosystem can be distilled into three separate components: LXP, LXP-L, and on-chain activity.

The First Pillar: LXP

Much has already been said about LXP in other discussions. This component reflects a contributor’s participation in all official activities organized by the team. However, it is the most vulnerable to abuse, especially by industrial-scale Sybil farms.

The Second Pillar: LXP-L

Though it may not be popular among some contributors, providing liquidity to the project is an incredibly valuable asset for the project’s growth. Ignoring this component and the contributions of participants in this activity would be unwise. However, it’s equally critical to balance the interests of liquidity whales with those of contributors providing smaller amounts of liquidity.

The Third Pillar: On-Chain Activity

This refers to all activity within the project that falls outside the scope of transactions conducted under LXP and LXP-L campaigns. This component is rarely considered in other proposals, yet on-chain activity offers significant insights into the strength and value of each wallet’s contribution to the project.

For example, just a few parameters could help determine a wallet’s value:

  1. Wallet age (date of the first transaction) and the duration between the first and the most recent transactions.
  2. Total number of transactions, as well as the average monthly transaction count (e.g., transactions over $10).
  3. Total transaction volume.

Calculating Contribution and Rewards

To determine each contributor’s share, it is essential to consider the cumulative value of all three components. This approach optimally protects the interests of both the contributors and the project. It also balances and fine-tunes the rewards for so-called “whales” and regular users alike.

Key Considerations for Reward Calculations

While I am not claiming to have finalized the formula for calculating activity contributions, I propose the following principles:

  1. Relative, not absolute values: Contribution from each component should be calculated as a percentage relative to all wallets, rather than using absolute figures. For instance, only wallets in the top 50% of LXP contributors should qualify for the airdrop, rather than requiring a specific number of points (e.g., 1,000 XP).
  2. Holistic scoring across components: The participation of each wallet across all components (LXP, LXP-L, on-chain activity) is crucial. For example, a wallet ranked in the top 10% for LXP, LXP-L, and on-chain activity should receive a more significant reward than a wallet ranked in the top 1% for LXP-L but only in the top 50% for on-chain activity and with no LXP score.

The idea is simple: the final reward for each user should be influenced by their combined performance across all three components.

Expected Benefits

This approach ensures the following:

  1. Fair distribution of rewards among users, properly recognizing their efforts.
  2. Prevention of scenarios where a whale simply buys a large number of NFTs or deposits significant funds at the end of the activities to gain LXP-L points. At the same time, such participants remain eligible for rewards.
  3. Effective filtering of Sybil farms that focus exclusively on farming LXP or LXP-L while neglecting other activities.
  4. Promotion of decentralization in the ecosystem.

By basing the distribution on a balanced evaluation of these three pillars, Linea can achieve both fairness and efficiency in token allocation.

11 Likes
2

The people who bought nft selling nft are not sybil.they did not buy non-existent nft.they bought the nft of people who gave up their rights.even someone with 100 alpha nft could earn a maximum of 3k lxp.I guess you can’t understand this.

9 Likes
3

Thank you Berlin. I like your approach.

Let me know if you have any comments to my forum post:

I’m trying to discuss what’s the 5-10 year vision for Linea. Understanding the vision will give us a better argument for what the airdrop should look like.

4 Likes
4

looks not bad but lxp for nfts looks a bit strange…

1 Like
5

I believe this would be the biggest mistake for Linea. Just look at the operations of any token on the Linea network, and you’ll see a mass of identical transactions from identical accounts. These accounts ignored the LXP campaign, farmed activity, volumes, and other obvious criteria in the Linea network for months, and are now finalizing their activity. All these pseudo-criteria have long been exploited by Sybil communities.

We have Proof of Work. We have plenty of unique events and activities to evaluate genuine participant engagement. So why should we reward a Sybil army based on such obvious criteria? It’s a rhetorical question. This idea will be pushed on the forum more and more frequently.

Criteria such as transaction volumes and their number are no longer even suitable as humor :slight_smile:

15 Likes
6

I agree completely.

Ignoring the LXP campaign by Linea could only have been a deliberate choice. I’ve seen plenty of posts from “smart guys” on Twitter (like “invest $5 in an account and get $1,000 in $ZRO”) claiming the LXP campaign wasn’t worth it, suggesting instead to buy their scripts and farm on-chain activity. These kinds of people are all over both English-speaking and local global communities.

The same folks hedged their bets by farming Linea Park, spending $3 and getting 1,500 LXP in return.

We need to evaluate accounts holistically. The more malicious participants we filter out, the more legitimate active participants will receive the drop.

  1. It would be fair.
  2. It would be effective from a decentralization standpoint.
  3. It would strengthen Linea’s position in the market both now and in the future.
8 Likes
7

Exactly. Purchasing NFTs has its reward equivalent in the form of LXP. However, I am firmly convinced that to properly identify “real” accounts, meaning users who are truly committed to the project, the size of the airdrop should be based on three criteria: LXP, LXP-L, and on-chain activity.

Thank you for the comment.

Honestly, it’s evident that the top priority for projects right now is to ensure maximum decentralization of governance during the INITIAL token distribution, i.e., the airdrop.

All subsequent airdrops serve a completely different purpose—namely, attracting new users and retaining existing loyal supporters.

The distribution of LXP for NFTs has already happened—that’s a fact we need to accept. The team made this decision. That’s precisely why, to balance and protect the interests of both wealthy whales and active, genuine Linea followers, I proposed the mentioned airdrop model, which takes into account three components: LXP, LXP-L, and on-chain activity.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again—none of the components should be prioritized over the others. Accounts must be evaluated based on the sum of their actions: LXP, LXP-L, and on-chain activity.

There’s no such thing as a PERFECT formula, but this approach will allow for a truly effective filtering of genuine followers while weeding out aggressive bot farms and Sybil attacks. It will also prevent blatantly unfair scenarios where only whales are rewarded—letting the rich get richer—while other active, everyday users are left empty-handed.

Thank you.

I think it’s obvious that Linea, as a project, is interested in identifying REAL users. It’s clear that achieving this with 100% accuracy is unrealistic and an inherently utopian idea.

However, evaluating the sum of three criteria—LXP, LXP-L, and on-chain activity—will allow for the most effective identification and selection of genuine, active users.

Let me reiterate—there is no universal solution. But the project is deeply invested in ensuring that, after the airdrop, it retains the highest possible number of real, active users. This goal can be achieved precisely by following my proposal.

3 Likes
8

Then I don’t understand what you’re talking about, everyone who earned LXP has excellent on-chain activity, especially those who started with Voyage. This is self-explanatory.

As a filter for $3 Linea Park automators, this approach isn’t effective either-perhaps only for a small fraction. Automating on-chain activity is even easier. Most of these users already have on-chain activity as well.

Should such users really be rewarded?

4 Likes
9

This was related to Yuri’s message.

LXP and LXP-L are separate programs from the very start. On-chain activity is already naturally accounted for when participating in the LXP program and should not be rewarded separately. Every time it’s brought up, it’s just an attempt by mass farmers to score extra points.

For those who genuinely contributed through campaigns, this issue doesn’t even cross their minds to discuss. The motivation behind these proposals is as clear as day.

4 Likes
10

Is transaction volume included in LXP? Could that be helpful to include as on-chain activity?

1 Like
11

Yes, there was enough volume in the voyage campaigns. The metric itself is useless. What’s the problem with inflating the transaction volume? It’s done in 2 minutes.

You guys offer metrics that can be easily achieved and give the abuser’s account an indulgence.

These metrics may be required for an account to be eligible, but not to influence the allocation size.

3 Likes
12

Imagine if, let’s say, Monad officially organized campaigns, and I chose not to participate in most of them. Later, as the airdrop nears, I transfer funds to Monad, invent my own criteria, and create random on-chain activities. Then, I join Monad’s Discord and say something like, “Hey guys, I know you previously had official campaigns, but if you distribute your airdrop primarily to those participants, it will harm decentralization. Instead, please consider the criteria I’ve made up for the allocation.”

Does that sound reasonable? Of course not, because I’m essentially trying to dictate what a long-time participant of nearly two years in a network deserves. There’s no rule that says someone must maximize benefits from every airdrop. Therefore, it’s entirely natural for projects to prioritize their own OGs when allocating rewards.

3 Likes
13

From what I see now the idea behind creating this topic is to defend low quality sybil accounts, which have low chance to get something valuable at TGE due to low amount of LXP and LXP-L. It becomes obvious that there is no sufficient theoretical amount of LXP and LXP-L on accounts, and sybils try their best adding “on chain activity” criteria just to boost their accounts in the eyes of the team and become eligible.

Wake up to reality guys. The LXP system was mainly created with the only one purpose: to evaluate your contribution with no bias, fully transparently and fairly. If you joined Linea on the very first DeFi voyage, you could potentially build up a lot of parity on LXP if you didn’t stop doing activities, which in conjunction with the tiers and the minimum threshold automatically puts you above those who came later.

It’s just nonsense when people start talking about on-chain activity, and the most useless one, like washtrading with fake volumes no one needs, as well as the number of transactions. I would still understand the logic of introducing the number of transactions as a criterion, but wake up we are in 2024 with perfectly working Dencun upgrade, when a hundred transactions can be done for literally a dollar of fees and 10 minutes of time, this does not bring any benefit and does not reflect anything, as it was before when transactions in L2 cost $0.5 - $1 back in the past.

And sorry for my expression, but criteria based on age or monthly activity of your wallet is the most retarded criterion that could be devised under current conditions. The LXP system automatically closes this issue. If you participate in Linea campaigns, starting with the Defi Voyage, it becomes obvious to everyone that you have about 5k+ LXP in your wallet, otherwise you collected so much thanks to NFT, roughly speaking, you bought someone’s time for money, which this someone considered a fair price for his work. What kind of complete nonsense are you talking about the number of unique months? This is simply nonsense, with the existing LXP system that reflects absolutely all the necessary criteria and the quality of your contribution to the network for almost two years.

The third pillar must be excluded fully. Everything valuable is priced in LXP, that’s my last word.

@ryuuko do you agree with me?

7 Likes
14

agree ！！！lxp best

1 Like
16

You said my mind but clearly

1 Like
17

:bulb: Thoughts on LXP Distribution and the Importance of Fairness

As someone ranked in the top 500 in LXP, I want to share my frustration with some of the proposals suggesting a linear distribution for upcoming airdrops. I’ve invested significant time, effort, and money to reach this level with a single wallet. Hearing that a linear distribution is considered “fair” feels counterproductive and even harmful to the ecosystem.

:earth_africa: The Problem with Sybils and the Pitfall of Linear Distribution

If I had spread my efforts and funds across 10 wallets instead of focusing on just one, I would likely have accumulated around 30,000 LXP in total, compared to the 9,000 LXP I currently have. This means that people who exploit the system using sybil wallets (multiple fraudulent wallets) would be significantly rewarded. And if this becomes the norm, what’s stopping me—or anyone else—from adopting the same approach?

However, what would the blockchain gain from this scenario? Absolutely nothing sustainable:

  1. Authentic users like me would feel discouraged and eventually abandon the platform.
  2. Sybil wallets provide no real value to the ecosystem in the long term. These “farmers” only exploit short-term opportunities, often at the expense of the blockchain’s overall health.

:hammer_and_wrench: Three Possible Scenarios for Distribution

  1. Linear distribution (without any multipliers)

    • Serious investors and loyal users (e.g., the top 10k) would lose out.
    • Result: A mass exodus to other blockchains, leaving the platform dominated by sybil wallets.

  2. Linear distribution with multipliers

    • This might partially satisfy some engaged users but would create backlash from those who don’t benefit from the multipliers.

  3. Tiered distribution with exponential coefficients

    • In my opinion, this is the ideal compromise:
      • Top investors remain satisfied and loyal.
      • Sybils earn less, discouraging excessive exploitation.
      • The blockchain retains a strong community, even if it loses around 1/3 of the sybil wallets.

:white_check_mark: My Ideal Solution: A KYC-Based Airdrop

If the goal is to support smaller users without encouraging sybil exploitation, the best approach would be an airdrop requiring KYC verification:

  • Yes, it might feel restrictive.
  • But it would ensure that only real users participate.

Even with a linear distribution in this case, I’d be satisfied because:

  1. The number of eligible participants would be reduced.
  2. Rewards would go to authentic members, not spammers.

:mag: Conclusion

Rewarding sybils weakens the ecosystem in the long term. To strengthen the blockchain and retain its real community, we need:

  • A system that rewards authentic efforts.
  • An approach that actively discourages exploitative behavior.

A strong blockchain relies on a community of engaged users, not a bloated number of phantom wallets. Let’s make the right decisions to ensure a sustainable future for our ecosystem. :muscle:

3 Likes
19

I think you should post this in a new thread mate, not too many people will see it here.

1 Like
20

very cleverly written.
You should include your opinions on DC #suggestions and open a new post here on the forum to be more visible

2 Likes
21

KYC at tge is a complete cringe, as far as I remember the most greedy and awfully structured projects implemented it and it never helped, only created more mess and fud across communities. It’s simply funny man, the ZK tech, pushing decentralization, privacy and asking to complete KYC at tge ? :sweat_smile:

And I’m sorry to offend you, but it will do nothing to sybils. When you see thousands of tokens you’re eligible for you won’t hesitate and buy KYC even for higher prices than fellas offer on OTCs. Farms may even borrow funds from traditional banks just to fund the big purchase of KYC. This approach solves absolutely nothing, I can repeat, absolutely nothing. It can simply make harder them to sell tokens at the very first day of TGE, but man, when you see allo at $500 and it cost you only ~20-30$ to buy KYC, claim $500 and leave with 480$+ pure profit, except fees they paid recently.

Finally, we all completed POH, reflecting our “humanity”. Personally, being in top 3k of LXP holders I don’t want to complete any KYC procedure again and again, transferring my data to unknown entities, when I’ve already completed POH. It’s not a job, it’s not a salary, where I must convey my personal data.

As for tiers, yes, I agree with you. Linear distribution is not looking good. Tiers + multiplyers pre-Dencun users is a good way to allocate tokens.

3 Likes
22

Like I mention before:

"truly decentralised, trustless Sybil resistance or proof of humanity is impossible.

We should stop trying to make it work, and instead focus on building systems that don’t assume individuals are unique humans."

1 Like