Airdrop Reporting Rashomon: Pursue Integrity or利益? Crypto Projects Face a Dilemma

Author: Wang1, TechFlow

Editor: David, TechFlow

Whether individuals focused on experiencing projects or dedicated farming studios, the festive atmosphere on airdrop day is no less than celebrating Chinese New Year.

But as project teams increasingly tighten their airdrop eligibility criteria, this joy has become rarer and rarer.

Witch-hunting has almost become a standard step before major project airdrops, and users’ primary anticipation has shifted from “How much will I earn this time?” to “I just hope I don’t get flagged as a witch.”

Farmers have gradually developed a classic binary judgment of projects: if they hunt witches, they lack vision; if they don’t, they’re generous.

Water can carry a boat, but it can also capsize it. Farmers are also a key source for inflating paper metrics. Faced with an unavoidable user base, crypto projects seem caught in a dilemma between demonstrating vision and protecting their interests.

And within this dilemma, different projects express different stances.

zkSync’s Friendly Gesture

On May 22, zkSync, planning its TGE this week, posted: “I cannot engage in censorship. Censorship is the killer of freedom.”

This statement immediately stirred the community.

Many speculated that while zkSync appeared to be criticizing censorship, its real intention was elsewhere—hinting at a relatively lenient future approach toward witch-checking.

After all, having publicly denounced censorship, it would be contradictory for a major project to later implement witch checks and risk criticism.

Why did such a subtle, indirect comment—without even explicitly saying they wouldn’t check witches—trigger collective celebration in the comments? Why did a seemingly straightforward opinion turn into news?

Because earlier this month, another highly anticipated project among farmers, LayerZero, implemented an anti-witch mechanism so strict it exceeded everyone’s imagination.

L0: Escalating the "Witch Hunt"

In May 2024, LayerZero, long-awaited by farmers, announced completion of its first-season snapshot and launched an anti-witch campaign prior to token distribution.

Unlike previous projects using databases to identify witch addresses, LayerZero introduced a “self-reporting” and “peer reporting” mechanism.

Starting May 4, users who believed their addresses might be flagged as witches were given 14 days to self-report. Upon verification by LayerZero, they could retain 15% of their airdrop allocation. Addresses not self-reported would have their entire airdrop share zeroed out if flagged.

After the self-reporting phase, a 14-day reporting period began, encouraging community members to report suspected witches. Successful reporters received 10% of the reported address’s airdrop share. If the reported address had zero expected tokens, the reporter received no reward.

Yes, LayerZero introduced a human behavioral model—its bounty-based reporting system. This unexpected, aggressive move sparked outrage across the community, with many calling it “something that shouldn’t happen in a crypto community” and declaring, “I’d rather be executed than confess.” Despite widespread opposition, under this carrot-and-stick mechanism, many still saw an opportunity.

Before the self-reporting deadline, LayerZero CEO Bryan Pellegrino announced on social media that over 338,000 addresses had admitted to being witches. On the second day of peer reporting, LayerZero said it had collected 2,312 witch reports and was reviewing them.

As a result, only a small fraction of originally expected airdrop recipients are likely to remain. By this measure, the project successfully achieved its “witch hunt” objective.

Protecting Vision or Protecting Interests?

But the focus here is no longer just about how effective the witch hunt was.

Airdrops aim to reward users who have genuinely invested time and effort into a project. The original intent behind anti-witch measures is to ensure fairer distribution—protecting real users’ rewards from being diluted by fake accounts operated by farming studios—and ensuring the project’s healthy long-term development.

From the perspective of fairness and industry growth, a project’s effort to “hunt witches” is commendable. But introducing a reporting system—especially one with financial incentives—changes the nature of the game.

Human nature doesn’t withstand amplification. Under a reporting system, previously neutral individuals may become zero-sum adversaries.

When tied to personal gain, reporting mechanisms can become tools for self-interest. Trust between people erodes with every accusation, magnified endlessly—an ironic contradiction for crypto, which was born to solve trust issues.

Moreover, if a project truly wants fair airdrop distribution, shouldn’t it announce its anti-witch policies upfront? Instead of waiting until fake accounts have already inflated the project’s metrics, then discarding them like a used bow after the birds are gone.

The escalation of anti-witch mechanisms is an inevitable industry trend. Once precedents like LayerZero’s are set, more projects will likely follow, increasing the risk of legitimate users being wrongly flagged. For individual users, shifting from “more and faster” to “precise and slow” strategies—and focusing on becoming genuine contributors—may be the best defense.

Farming airdrops was once a win-win “common prosperity”—you invest, I contribute, and we all benefit.

But now, everyone seems trapped: projects seek a better ecosystem future by expanding witch-detection methods; farmers strive to refine their techniques to evade detection. Even farmers now eye each other with suspicion.

In this “witch hunt,” people constantly reenact scenes of *Infernal Affairs*. Airdrop farming has turned into endless torment—a world where there’s no free lunch, only exhausting battles for profit.

The arena of human nature never closes. Wishing you safety amid the chaos.