2026-01-06 16:40:48

The gameplay of airdrops is evolving again. Recently, I saw a project implement a dynamic decreasing system for point claims—starting at 30 points, decreasing by 5 points every minute, until it reaches 10 points. At first glance, isn't this kind of design testing users' decision-making psychology?

The price performance after the project launches actually explains the issue quite well. Behind sharp fluctuations, it reflects the market's adaptation process to new incentive mechanisms and also shows investors' quick reactive strategies. So the question is—are the increasingly complex and refined rules meant to strengthen long-term community engagement, or are they just creating short-term hype through gimmicks?

Looking at the development trajectory of the Ethereum ecosystem, truly active projects often share this trait: the community consensus is already deep enough, and they don't rely excessively on a single incentive lever. These enthusiast-driven projects tend to be more resilient. Conversely, projects with complicated rules and frequently changing incentive designs tend to reveal weaknesses in their community foundation.

What do you think about this wave of innovation in airdrop rules?

ETH-1,49%

DOGE-2,62%

PEPE-6,24%

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.

8 Likes

Reward
8
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SigmaValidator

· 01-07 13:55

The dynamic decreasing tactic, to put it simply, is about urging you to make a decision quickly and creating a sense of urgency. It has a bit of a get-rich-quick vibe.

View OriginalReply0

MonkeySeeMonkeyDo

· 01-06 17:09

The dynamic decrement system is essentially about exploiting the time difference—who reacts faster wins. The more complicated the rules, the more it indicates the project is insecure. Truly confident projects don't need to go through such trouble.

View OriginalReply0

BetterLuckyThanSmart

· 01-06 17:07

I'm really tired of this hunger marketing. Dropping from 30 points to 10 points just to trap us? I've seen through that psychology long ago. Next. The more complicated the rules, the more the project team feels insecure. Projects with some vision simply don't do this kind of thing.

View OriginalReply0

TokenomicsShaman

· 01-06 17:07

This decreasing mechanism really tests human nature. Dropping from 30 to 10 within 30 minutes, who wouldn't panic? Old projects are simpler and more straightforward, and they tend to last longer. Look at what happened to those with complicated rules and tricks.

View OriginalReply0

NotAFinancialAdvice

· 01-06 17:04

To be honest, this dynamic decreasing gameplay is a psychological game; whoever acts first gets cut. Dropping from 30 points to 10 points is just to create anxiety and prompt people to act quickly. The project team has long understood human weaknesses. Truly viable projects don't need such tricks; whitelist and early participants will naturally come. The more complicated and elaborate the rules are, the more I feel it's covering up underlying weaknesses.

View OriginalReply0

RiddleMaster

· 01-06 16:55

Dynamic decrementing is essentially hunger marketing; dropping from 30 points to 10 points is purely a psychological game. Projects with genuine consensus simply don't use this approach; they just release directly.

View OriginalReply0

StakeHouseDirector

· 01-06 16:53

The dynamic decrease system... to put it simply, it's about creating a sense of scarcity and playing psychological games. I find it quite annoying. A truly good project doesn't need to go through all this fuss; the community can promote it on its own.

View OriginalReply0