Thoughts on Paradex Launch & Starknet User Inclusion Strategy

🤷‍♀️ All-Purpose Hangout
1

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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:

  1. Should the Foundation establish guidelines (not requirements) for ecosystem alignment in major token launches?
  2. Is it reasonable to expect projects building on Starknet infrastructure to include some consideration for Starknet ecosystem participants?
  3. How can we balance attracting new projects (who may want flexibility) with rewarding existing community members?
  4. 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.

2

Thank you for putting this into words so clearly. This is exactly the conversation we need to be having, and I am glad someone finally raised it in a structured and constructive way.

As someone who has been active in the Starknet ecosystem for over three years, participating in governance, engaging with dApps, contributing to community education, and consistently advocating for Starknet adoption across Africa, The Paradex launch genuinely stung. Not because of entitlement, but because of what it signals about how value is perceived within this ecosystem.

We talk a lot about Starknet being a community-first chain. We talk about STARK technology being the future. But when a protocol settles on Starknet, benefits from its infrastructure, its community evangelism, and its developer ecosystem, and then distributes exclusively to Ethereum wallet holders, it raises a fair question: who exactly is this ecosystem being built for?

I strongly support your Option 2 — Foundation-Supported Distributions. The Foundation is in the best position to have these conversations early, during the grant and partnership phase, before token economics are finalised. That is where the leverage exists. Trying to influence distribution after the fact is nearly impossible. But making ecosystem alignment a soft expectation during onboarding is both reasonable and precedented, as you rightly pointed out with Optimism and Arbitrum.

Your point about Extended is particularly important. That conversation needs to happen now. The community has been patient through significant STRK price pressure, through periods of low activity, and through watching other ecosystems grow faster. The least we can ask is that projects launching on our infrastructure acknowledge the people who kept the lights on during the hard times.

To answer your discussion questions directly:

Yes, the Foundation should establish soft guidelines. Not mandates, not requirements but a clear framework that sets expectations for major launches. Projects should know before they build what ecosystem alignment looks like on Starknet.

Yes, it is reasonable to expect some consideration for Starknet ecosystem participants. Even a modest allocation say 5 to 10% reserved for stakers, governance voters, and long-term dApp users would send a powerful message without materially impacting a project’s primary distribution goals.

The balance between attracting new projects and rewarding existing community members is not as difficult as it sounds. Flexibility and alignment are not opposites. A project can reward its primary user base generously while still acknowledging the infrastructure community that made their product possible.

Fair eligibility criteria could look something like this: minimum STRK staking duration, governance participation history, consistent on-chain activity across Starknet dApps, and contribution to ecosystem growth. These are all verifiable on-chain signals that reward genuine believers rather than airdrop farmers.

I hope this post gains the traction it deserves. The Starknet Foundation and ecosystem teams should treat this as a signal worth acting on not just acknowledging.