2025-12-25 16:26:12

Recently, there has been quite a bit of discussion about the native token of a major trading platform.

Browsing through various forums and communities, I indeed saw many opinions questioning this project—some say the valuation is inflated, others complain about airdrop hunters gathering. For early participants, these negative voices are indeed a bit frustrating. Even more disheartening is that participating in early activities doesn't necessarily guarantee an airdrop, and the feeling that "efforts might be wasted" is truly chilling.

But upon reflection, these doubts about overvaluation and too many speculative users didn't appear out of nowhere. Is the project itself perhaps a bit "overplayed" in its fundraising pricing and incentive mechanism design? Is the transparency of the airdrop rules sufficient? These are all worth discussing.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

18 Likes

Reward
18
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SchrodingerWallet

· 2025-12-28 15:59

I've seen it all along, the airdrop rules are just a trick to scalp retail investors. Participating is pointless; this is the norm in the crypto world. The funding valuation is completely unsubstantiated; who dares to take over? With such an inflated valuation, a crash is inevitable. There are too many speculators; retail investors have no way out. This round of operations is indeed a bit excessive, with transparency being extremely poor. Early users got the worst of it, a bloody lesson.

View OriginalReply0

HashRatePhilosopher

· 2025-12-28 10:43

This wave is indeed a bit heartbreaking. Early participants who took advantage of the opportunities are now wondering if they got caught in a trap. With such opaque airdrop rules, who dares to say their efforts were not worth it? The project team’s approach to fundraising and pricing is a bit ruthless, no wonder they are being questioned. Ultimately, the issue still lies in mechanism design; transparency needs to be improved. Early participants feel the most aggrieved, and now being falsely accused of being airdrop hunters is truly speechless. It's one thing for speculators to flock in, but the key is that valuation matters and should be handled with integrity. It feels like the project team is really trying to kill this token off, otherwise why so many complaints?

View OriginalReply0

TopBuyerForever

· 2025-12-25 16:56

This is exactly the scam to cut leeks; airdrop rules are all nonsense, and early participants end up getting played.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoHistoryClass

· 2025-12-25 16:49

*checks charts from 2017* ah yeah, the classic "we promise early believers will be rewarded" followed by airdrop dilution into oblivion. history rhymes, doesn't it

Reply0

DataBartender

· 2025-12-25 16:44

It's hard work participating in early activities only to get cut again. I'm really tired of this routine.

View OriginalReply0

SchroedingersFrontrun

· 2025-12-25 16:32

Airdrop hunters gathering is really a thing, messing around early on for half a day and ending up with nothing, this feeling is incredible. Who’s to blame for the inflated valuation? The fundraising pricing strategy is indeed quite ruthless. It’s not the first project to do this, I’ve seen it before. Transparency? Uh... that thing has never been a necessity for trading platforms. I just want to know, are there still people going all-in in this round? It’s hard to hold on, early investors really got cut. The mechanism design is terribly bad, and the airdrop rules are like a lottery.

View OriginalReply0

OnchainDetective

· 2025-12-25 16:31

Airdrop hunters are everywhere, but the true believers are actually being diluted, which is ridiculous. Participating early and getting scammed for free, then changing the rules makes everything worthless—I've seen this happen too many times. Raising funds with fake valuations, unclear incentive mechanisms—no wonder people are complaining. Ultimately, it's the project teams trying to scalp profits, and users want to scalp the project teams too—nobody feels comfortable. Transparency is really dragging things down; we need to ask some serious questions. This wave of operations can easily trigger a trust crisis; in the long run, it's quite dangerous. Early users get hurt the most; I was wondering why so many people are cursing.

View OriginalReply0