The downturn of the airdrop strategy
Exhaustion from the commonplace aspects in EVM environments, once praised for their modular concepts, are now viewed as weak or dubious at best; traditional strategies are no longer effective as the story changes swiftly once more. The Ethereum group is struggling with such internal disputes, and the resolution will probably determine the course of its ecosystem’s future.
During this period, it is critical for the Australian cryptocurrency community to stay alert and knowledgeable. The changing landscape within Ethereum could introduce both threats and prospects. Being a developer, investor, or merely a cryptocurrency enthusiast, having an insight about these internal difficulties will be key in making educated choices in the upcoming months.
A few months ago, I described the concept of points dominating the token airdrop meta. Several alternative implementation layers were emerging everywhere, promoting the chance to gain potential rewards through providing liquidity on their networks. The concept was straightforward: users would be encouraged to utilize applications on a particular rollup or contribute assets to its trading pools. When the chain launched, tokens would be distributed to a semi-random group of eligible participants. The intention was to synchronize these individuals more closely with the protocol and its subsequent developments.
In my previous article, I argued that the modular cottage industry had adversely affected Ethereum’s scalability. However, recent events have emphasized the significant misalignment of the economic incentives.
You may question why I’m discussing tokens in an article about Bitcoin. Think of it simply as a warning to steer clear from any Bitcoin scaling plan or layer that includes a token. Beyond their inherent deceitful characteristic, such actions are a clear indication of initiatives that lag behind, even in comparison to Ethereum. It doesn’t matter what kind of technology they allege to utilize, and you shouldn’t worry about their performance environment or zero-knowledge proof either. These projects are running out of time and we anticipate they will exploit their “users” at every opportunity to take advantage of any remaining liquidity from this scheme.
Is it possible to confirm the identity of a user in a system that uses pseudonyms? It’s not.
Interestingly, the exact reverse is occurring. Over the past week, a few greatly anticipated token airdrops have highlighted the ridiculousness of the approach.
The recent surge of projects purportedly looking to “develop on Bitcoin” seems to be fuelled more by opportunistic intentions rather than any significant innovation. While projects like BitVM and ordinals have attracted considerable attention and inspired creativity, their implementation has left much to be desired. This largely comes down to negligent operators who, instead of focusing on real engineering tasks, borrowed the Ethereum model and modified it for Bitcoin use. Most of these entrepreneurs are viewed as subpar within the industry.
Ethereum’s internal conflicts
Surely, the obstacle to this infrastructure competition has been the capacity of its advocates to mass produce tokens as if they were going out of fashion. Regrettably for them, it appears that the tendency is starting to falter on these plans. You may recall how everyone gradually shifted away from ICOs after Dentacoin amassed billions of dollars. A similar scenario is unfolding presently.
This ongoing dilemma within Ethereum is a significant event that Australian cryptocurrency enthusiasts need to monitor diligently. The broader cryptocurrency market could feel the repercussions of these disputes, influencing everything from investment plans to the feasibility of fresh initiatives. As Ethereum’s developers and stakeholders traverse these rough scenarios, their decisions could either strengthen its status as a top-notch platform or provide an avenue for rivals to advance.
- A group supporting the incorporation into a protocol that aims to streamline economic activity and enhance user experience.
- Another group expresses worries that the centralization of MEV extraction could impact resistance to censorship.
Vitalik may soon need to produce another surprise solution…
Source: bitcoinmagazine.com
Failing to do so provides a chance for any competent participant to pretend to be any user. As expected, financially strong players grasped the tactic quickly and have been heavily leveraging it to their advantage. Rather than attracting users, airdrops have lured opportunists who are plundering every new layer they can access with their wallets.
Yesterday, the Bitcoinlayers platform announced that over 50% of the present Bitcoin scaling suggestions were considering the utilization of Ethereum’s EVM as a technical platform. I’m unsure how to interpret this statistic; even linking any of these with Bitcoin might be overly optimistic, but it’s clear that there’s market curiosity in investigating this concept.
The current unstable condition of Ethereum is particularly noteworthy. While it might not be accurate to label it a civil war, conflict lines are indeed being established which will substantially affect its rollup-centric roadmap.
