Opening:
I want to raise a topic about the Paradex token launch yesterday - not to criticize, but to start a constructive conversation about ecosystem alignment and user incentives on Starknet.
The Situation:
Paradex launched their token with an airdrop exclusively for Ethereum wallet holders. Despite being built on Starknet infrastructure (using STARK technology and settling on our chain), the distribution didn’t include eligibility for native Starknet users.
This creates an interesting disconnect: a protocol leveraging Starknet’s technology for its core infrastructure, but not engaging the community that supports that infrastructure.
Why This Matters:
- Community Building vs. User Acquisition
Most successful ecosystems reward early believers and consistent users. Starknet users who:
∙ Staked STRK tokens
∙ Participated in governance
∙ Used dApps consistently
∙ Provided liquidity on Starknet DEXs
…received no consideration in the Paradex distribution, despite the protocol relying on Starknet’s tech stack. - Ecosystem Incentive Alignment
When projects build on Starknet but primarily reward users from other ecosystems, it sends a mixed message about where value accrues. We want projects to succeed, but ideally in ways that also benefit the community supporting the underlying infrastructure. - User Retention During Market Conditions
STRK token has faced significant price pressure since launch. This is a challenging time for community members who believed in the ecosystem early. When major projects launch on Starknet but don’t acknowledge these users, it adds to the frustration.
A Constructive Proposal:
I’m not suggesting every Starknet-based project must airdrop to STRK holders. That’s not realistic or fair.
But I do think the Foundation and ecosystem teams should consider establishing soft guidelines for major launches:
Option 1: Dual Eligibility
Projects could include both their primary user base AND a smaller allocation for Starknet ecosystem participants (stakers, governance participants, long-term dApp users).
Option 2: Foundation-Supported Distributions
The Foundation could negotiate participation allocations during early support phases. For example:
∙ “We’ll provide X support/grants, but we request Y% of tokens be reserved for Starknet ecosystem alignment”
∙ Foundation could purchase tokens at discounted rates specifically for community distribution
Option 3: Clear Eligibility Criteria
Projects launching on Starknet could publish clear criteria for how Starknet-native users might participate, even if it’s a smaller allocation than primary users.
Precedent & Comparison:
Other ecosystems have successfully balanced this:
∙ Optimism’s RetroPGF rewards ecosystem contributors
∙ Arbitrum included governance participants in major protocol launches
∙ Base has alignment between Coinbase users and onchain activity
Starknet could develop similar frameworks without being prescriptive or demanding.
The Extended Consideration:
With Extended (another major Starknet-based perpetuals protocol) likely planning future token distributions, this feels like an important conversation to have NOW rather than after the fact.
Extended has:
∙ Significant Starknet-native user base
∙ Deep integration with STRK ecosystem
∙ Active community participation
It would be disappointing to see a similar pattern where ecosystem believers are overlooked in favor of only attracting new users from other chains.
What Success Could Look Like:
I’m not asking for handouts. I’m suggesting that ecosystem alignment should be part of the conversation when major projects launch on Starknet.
Ideal scenario:
∙ Projects announce clear eligibility criteria early
∙ Some meaningful portion considers Starknet ecosystem participation (even if smaller than primary user base)
∙ Foundation facilitates these conversations during early partnership stages
∙ Community understands what to expect and can plan accordingly
Questions for Discussion:
- Should the Foundation establish guidelines (not requirements) for ecosystem alignment in major token launches?
- Is it reasonable to expect projects building on Starknet infrastructure to include some consideration for Starknet ecosystem participants?
- How can we balance attracting new projects (who may want flexibility) with rewarding existing community members?
- What would fair eligibility criteria look like for “Starknet ecosystem participation”?
Closing Thoughts:
I raise this not out of entitlement, but because I believe strong ecosystems reward those who support infrastructure, not just those who use individual applications.
Paradex will likely succeed - they built a good product. But the launch felt disconnected from the Starknet community that enables their technology.
As more major projects launch on Starknet, I hope we can find better alignment between protocol success and ecosystem reward.
Happy to hear other perspectives on this.