During the @infinex x @KaitoAI Yaprun campaign
@OxJoshyy stood out with 138k followers, ranking 65th over 30 days with 0.26% mindshare.
His points promised a share of the $900k reward pool, until X suspended him, and his rewards? Denied.
@RumpelLabs could’ve saved his points. https://t.co/VXJSvq3inV
The thing is, Joshyy's case is not an isolated one.
@friendtech, Introduced a points program shortly after launch to incentivize user engagement.
But it faced criticism due to technical issues, limited token transferability, and a distribution strategy perceived as unfavorable.
@eigencloud airdrop claim date on may 10, 2024 came with its controversies as well.
Tokens were non-transferable upon claim, leading to user frustration.
Only 15% of the total token supply was allocated to the community, with 5% distributed in Season 1. https://t.co/3Ms0T7P5Hb
And users from over 30 countries, including the U.S. and Canada, were excluded from the airdrop.
In May 2024, @sanctumso gave out half of their airdrop based on “Earnestness”, a score that measured how much users posted on social media.
This led to controversy.
As users who contributed capital felt undervalued compared to those rewarded for social engagement.
I could go on and on with projects that fell below expectations post TGE.
Users (point farmers and point investors) are mostly left unsatisfied.
And the projects in question? https://t.co/qYZga2Ya7a
They suffer backlash and negative sentiment, which can sometimes hurt community building and long-term protocol health.
So how can the three parties:
◻️ Point farmers
◻️ Point investors
◻️ Point-issuing projects
all be happy and satisfied? Because they’re all equally affected.