I've been placing orders on @nadoHQ recently, aiming to reach a trading volume of 1–2 million (gamblers have no future, only airdrops do).

The main reason for trading on this platform is because @baili1018 pushed me to do so; he is quite optimistic about it.
A 0.00035% fee is already very high in perp DEXs, and currently, there are no referral rebates.

I've now traded nearly 600,000 in volume, with fees and slippage totaling around $200, which is a bit costly.

Many people are optimistic about this platform, and there are three main points.

First, the background is transparent.
@fx's favorite child, INK.
Airdrops are definitely coming; the only uncertainty is the share and distribution logic.
I lean towards projects that are "certain to have, just not sure how big."

Second, in the early stage, the method is primitive but effective.
Currently, nado's perp has almost no strategies to optimize, unlike other perps that can rely on hedging, rebates, or market making to share costs.
So the only thing to do now is: trade more, participate more, and push hard.
And precisely because of this, many people have given up; other perp projects have already been taken over by exchanges, and pushing here at least avoids competition from exchanges.

Third, high slippage = fewer participants.
This is counterintuitive, but I agree with it.
The higher the slippage, the less willing ordinary players are to participate, so the actual number of participants will be lower.
If there is an airdrop later, the same pool with fewer people sharing will have a higher expected value per order.

I won't share the invite code here; if you need it, you can DM me. For acquaintances, I’ve already given it out.

Of course, this isn't a project you can blindly go all-in on; I initially see it as a high-risk game rather than high cost-effectiveness.

It's not suitable for small funds to repeatedly try and error, nor for going all-in, but if you like this kind of pure gambling mode, I think the cost-performance ratio is still relatively high.

Pure personal choice, for reference only, not any form of advice.