If time weighted liquidity provided could be included it would make an excellent criteria, farmers using multiple wallets must spread their assets out, hence they won’t score great on this metric. Human verification would also be great, I think gitcoin passport could be included in the following way:
Connect both a Starknet wallet and an Eth wallet on the airdrop page
Verify Gitcoin pasport score >25 to claim
Any unclaimed amounts could be distributed to increase the stake of the wallets who claimed (like Celestia)
There is a Galxe campaign but criteria like passport ID and promoting sharing personal information like that could lead to the loss of new users’ funds/ID theft ect.
Great topic of discussion! I would love to see a points system. Many people have named a large number of multipliers, the more the user collects them, the more points they will have).
On-chain activity is of course very important. But social activity is also, many people contribute a lot of content about different projects in the ecosystem and there are far fewer of them than sybils.
But to leave someone without $STARK is not a good idea, as for the development of the ecosystem, just someone will get more and someone will get less depending on the contribution.
I support the use of Gitcoin passport with a score of atleast 25. However, Gitcoin passport only recognize EVM wallets( for now). How is it feasible to use it?
Other criteria that may help include: Wallet age( atleast 6months old), number of active months, number of active weeks and days. The use of official bridge( Starkgate bridge) can also be considered.
Actually Onchain is very important but some criterias to prevent sybils ( i mean every person should have 1 Wallet) should be taken into account like Gitcoin passport.
there are so many possible eligibility criteria that maybe you should take the best from the other protocols, certainly interaction time, number of interactions, and even testnet participation
I don’t agree with 2-3 years of vesting, people who don’t care about the project will continue to sell tokens. This can be more devastating to the long-term price defense than dumping all at once. It’s more important to have good qualifying criteria!!
If you don’t remember Linea voyage testnet event? , testnet transactions are a bot and sybil’s paradise. To avoid sibyls, We need to add volume and wallet balance to criteria. Spreading money across multiple wallets has its limits.
Vesting is always such an interesting idea, I do like it as well! It “forces” the airdrop recipients to become active in the ecosystems for a prolonged period.
whatever you do , farmer always do these things , like spreading $ to mulitiple wallets
imo use something like older wallet or human verification from starknet domain .
these things also not sure if it’ll avoid sybil
could be 2 sides of a blade, people will be not interested in the project, if there is a long vesting period, while there are more attractive projects in the market right now. Team should consider the balance carefully.
I think TIA and STARKNET are very different projects in terms of size and category, and we should look at the airdrop criteria of Arbitrum and Optimism, which are L2s of similar size.
I think TIA and STARKNET are very different projects in terms of size and category, and we should look at the airdrop criteria of Arbitrum and Optimism, which are L2s of similar size.
Yes, I totally agree to this point. They are also quiet different in size of community and project scopes.
The criteria you mentioned are good, but since there is no official announcement, it is difficult to say anything. I am thinking about what criteria there might be more and these came to my mind
Native Bridged funds
Transactions over time
github contributors
These are just guesses, we are all waiting for official announcements.
