The characteristic of Sybil Farmers, which currently uses 100 to more than 1000, is that they are users with enough money and time, and foundations and real users should be aware that these users cause damage to real users and project teams.
These users are using transactions based on the standards of Arbitrum and Optimism Airdrop and are mocking you guys in a Telegram room discussing proofs via off-chain such as Discord, Gitcoin Passport. (EX. Russia, China, South Korea, etc.)
Given what the community is discussing, it seems impossible to defend against more than 1000 Sybil users.
They already have 0.1M to 1M$ or more, so access like Gitpassport(Linea), Discord(Sui), or KYC is meaningless. Because it can be bought with money.
Their accounts, which I estimate, have more than 1M accounts, so I think they have enough reason to skip them on the project side as well.
But I don’t think it’s possible to even skip them, and I don’t think it should be. Only by reducing the share they will receive does it not reach the areas where real users are harmed.
Here’s how I think we can skip those users
-
Ban the ID of the user using the same IP and fingerprint except one
-The country where Starknet was established was researched as free from this. Even if this is against Starknet’s spirit, it is thought that informal proceedings are highly effective for projects and ecosystem members.
The reason why they are careless about these things despite having money is that other projects have rarely been filtered out by these things. Because it was illegal in the country of the project. -
Starknet team should focus on analyzing and removing their on-chain features.
-They tend to create transactions based on the Arbitrum or Optimism Airdrop criteria and then leave them unattended. Because if that standard is passed, generating an additional 1000 accounts is a lot of time and cost, so there is no cost-effectiveness.You must delve into these characteristics well. In the case of Arbitrum, they tried to catch such a pattern with a transaction within 24 hours, but Starknet needs stronger action than this. Whether using bots or generating direct transactions, this is a difficult part to act like a real user.I think starknet can ban the pattern of some Sybil-producing influencers such as CC2. -
One thing to be wary of is that the air drop standards should not be too excessive for real users to receive.
-In fact, some people think that using and loving Starknet is cool, but I think there are more cases where people do it because they think it makes money. However, actual users (those who use only one account) are likely to do only one account because they do not have a lot of money. Therefore, the airdrop standard should not be set too high. If you do so, you will often see cases that are less than the actual value due to user opposition. And users with 1000 sybil accounts are rich users, so they have to do so that they can receive a certain amount. It is because their fees contributed to the development of the ecosystem to some extent. Didn’t that money be used to give developers and Dapps this time?
In fact, if the above three methods are used well, it is thought that a successful wide air drop will proceed.
If method 1 is impossible because it may go against the value of decentralization, it would be better to focus on method 2.
Honestly, let’s not do things like KYC, gitcoin passport, galxe passport, or discord. I’m tired and close to it. If you’re going to do this, it’s more efficient to just ban ip and fingerprint and block proxy. It’s much more efficient.