Would you still farm a testnet if meaningless clicks got you nothing?
Fluent is serious about purging Sybil spam, and they’re forcing a rethink on how testnet contributions should be rewarded.
The meta for airdrops is changing, and we have to adapt to the new norms and outperform Sybils to get the highest allocations:
Projects that focus on short-term hype will optimise for vanity metrics.
And users who add to these metrics are usually awarded with an airdrop.
Yes, projects farm users just as we farm them.
They need these metrics to show VCs that they’re ‘successful’ in raising more funding.
Instead of caring about revenue or the sustainability of the project.
So they’ll either directly encourage us to spam transactions or leave vague hints that they’ll reward users.
And the whole speculation about testnet airdrops was likely triggered by Aptos:
All we needed was to mint a testnet NFT, and we could have received a nice $1k airdrop.
But projects know that this is not sustainable.
Testnet transactions mean nothing because there’s nothing at stake.
We’re not using real money for transactions, so Sybil farmers will go all out to spam them on the network.
Thinking that it’ll help them qualify for the airdrop.
Yes, we are spending huge amounts of our time to test these chains and we still get nothing in return.
But that’s because Sybils are doing the exact same actions as us, so how can we differentiate between us and these bots?
Yes, there are ‘Proof of Humanity’ measures to weed out Sybils, but those are no longer enough.
These transactions don’t add any value either, apart from stress-testing the network.
Every new testnet experiences the same issue:
Sybil farms flood the entire network and either crash it or push up gas fees, just like what happened to Story.
https://x.com/fipcrypto/status/1828958572279148728
That’s why I’ve stopped doing testnets:
If we’re doing the exact same actions as a Sybil, how can we be differentiated from one?
We provide the same contributions as thousands of other wallets, so it becomes meaningless.
It becomes another job where I’m spamming mindless transactions on DApps to show that I’m a real user, but that no longer matters.
I’ve wasted hours on clicking testnets, which have given me a poor ROI on my time.
The projects that care about long-term success would choose to go for value instead of hype.
They will look to reward meaningful contributions instead of numbers.
It’s harder to identify these individuals as there are no metrics to quantify value.
But projects that spend time identifying and rewarding them will build a loyal user base.
The best airdrops are surprise ones that are a byproduct of using products we enjoy.
You have a real need and a certain app helps to solve the problem you have.
There’s no point in farming projects because it will burn you out.
We’ve seen so many chains being launched, but some barely have any users anymore.
And the reason is simple:
No one will use your chain if there are no apps.
That’s exactly why I didn’t do much on Eclipse because the ecosystem didn’t appeal to me.
ADD ECLIPSE
I have shifted my approach too and started prioritising this more:
I’m not going to force myself to interact with a project I don’t enjoy using just for the sake of an airdrop.
If there’s a need that it solves, then I will.
Otherwise, I’ll skip it completely even if it’s overhyped on the timeline.
Just like how no one cares that AWS powers many of the apps we use daily:
No one would care about what chain an app uses.
Find apps that you truly enjoy using, and not just because there are rewards for using it.
Quantity no longer matters, it’s now all about quality.
Once Starknet rewarded an allocation for GitHub contributions:
‘Influencers’ told their audiences to post commits on Scroll’s GitHub repos.
And many just spammed useless commits to ‘show’ that they contributed in this way.
If the commit is not meaningful, then it’ll just be labelled as spam and you get nothing.
So it’s good to see how Fluent prioritises constructive feedback over pure quantity.
If a project truly cares about building a good product, they would want feedback that improves it.
And not inauthentic reviews that bootlick the project in hopes that their overly positive review gets rewarded more.
So here’s the strategy I’d use to get the highest allocation on Fluent:
Share authentic feedback based on:
My experiences using the apps
My opinions on what I want to see in that app
There’s no point in asking ChatGPT to write the feedback for me, because they don’t have any context of my thoughts.
Fluent will filter out low-quality spam, so your AI slop is useless.
There’s no need to farm airdrops as the meta has changed again:
Here’s my new strategy to get airdrops:
Provide enough value to them through meaningful contributions, and they’ll reward you with the highest allocations.
It’s interesting to see the backlash that @blendino_ and the @fluentxyz team has received:
“Why bother having an open testnet if there are no incentives?”
“You won’t have a community if you don’t reward testers”
A project gets to decide what they deem as the most valuable contributions, and not us.
Fluent is choosing to value constructive feedback more than vanity metrics, and transparency is always valued in this space.
Too often, projects overhype their testnet and leave vague hints to fuel speculation.
It’ll be interesting to see how this drop compares to other testnet ones like Succinct.
For now, I don’t plan to interact with Fluent unless there’s something that interests me.
Till then, I’ll keep working on building my onchain and social reputation.
Share Dialog
FIP Crypto
Support dialog
293
