Why Does ‘Catalyst Almighty’ hate free moolah?

[Tunezjr]

Earlier this month Catalyst and I had a discussion on the timeline where he explained how the Megaeth TVL wasn’t exactly truthful. Under his explanation he had a little discourse with someone from Megaeth where catalyst brilliantly explained that using rewards to prop up TVL was neither sustainable nor was it the direction Neverland was heading. He was VEHEMENTLY against the points system though

It made me remember Neverland also never took a public raise. And Catalyst hates airdrops too I just really am curious lmfao. I feel like it’s the result of seeing too many campaigns like that end negatively, I’m just positively amused at how rigid he is on his stance .

[hypermassiv]

Pretty much the whole team has a similar stance, including myself.

Can’t speak for Catalyst but I’ve been against airdrop or point campaigns for the longest time because they are rarely useful and more often than not, cause unnecessary animosity and are a bane to the industry that’s struggling to be taken seriously.

From a user’s perspective, sure, airdrops and points are free money and what a time to be alive to “get paid” for doing tasks that require clicking buttons on a website. However, that’s a very one-dimensional view IMO.

From a protocol’s perspective, airdrops are simply manufactured sell pressure on the day of TGE. The day that’s supposed to signal the start of a protocol is seen by airdrop farmers as the endgame and exit. Founders have to ask if this is something they want, and if they have the ability to absorb the shock. Hyperliquid had a very successful airdrop campaign because their founders had millions of personal funds to buy back tokens that people had dumped. Not many founders have the same capability.

And as for points, these are particularly nefarious because of how abstract they are, especially when used as part of reward APR. In most cases I’ve seen, users end up frustrated after their expectation of the yield they get from points are not met. These folks spend time and capital farming these points and it can quickly turn to FUD when they find out they’ve earned $5 in airdrops for $100k trading volume for example. Again, founders should think if this is something they want for their protocol.

Then comes the community angle. A protocol may build a lot of hype and a large and “active” community, but yet how many times have we seen people posting on X thanking a certain protocol for airdrop while showing screenshots of them selling the tokens and cashing out? I’ve even commented on one here that caused quite a bit of discussion: https://x.com/hypermassiv/status/2048739268638749154?s=46&t=_OM8d-5_EhvJNA7Uxssptw

Again, founders have to discern whether the community of “supporters” they’ve build is real or just a pack of wolves in sheep’s clothing. The former, like the community you see in Neverland, stays and grows stronger while the latter leaves for the next victim once they get their payout.

Even the economics lead at MegaETH replied to Catalyst that “Points are like free samples at Costco… It’s not a way to just get free groceries for the week.”. These points are essentially worthless but people still treat them like a paycheck.

[Tunezjr]

Personally I am neither for nor against, and I really was really just testing out the topic writing.

but while we are on the subject, what would be your recommendation for a truly decentralized system then? The foundational idea of airdrops was scattering the token so wide that no single entity could accumulate enough to influence the chain unfairly. While the model failed, the original idea is still very important.

[hypermassiv]

I do agree with the foundational concept of airdrops (though not so much about decentralization, but rather distributing tokens so that users can start using the product). But as we know, in this self-serving world, (3,3) style game theory does not work and users are more inclined to care about benefiting themselves than benefitting everyone else as a whole. In essence, people are more likely to sell what’s been given for free.

The topic of decentralization is still very much researched and debated upon and I don’t think a consensus *pun intended* has been met yet. Even with Neverland governance for example, we have been debating internally about how to structure it to protect the protocol while moving towards progressive decentralization. Obviously we don’t want a situation whereby a malicious actor with lots of voting power can come in and destabilise the protocol for their own benefit, which means we need guardrails and guardians. But with such guardrails and guardians, then it begs the question of whether this is truly considered “decentralized”. Then the discussion becomes not so much about decentralized or not, bur rather how decentralized we need to be.

And that’s just for Neverland, chain decentralization is a whole other wider discussion especially when it comes to the topic of exploit recovery. We’ve seen multiple instances of chain validators collectively change chain states (roll backs, forks, etc), so then again the argument comes as to whether this is considered decentralized.

[Akey]

The discussion here has been really nice to read.
The crypto space is always chasing something new, so a lot of projects end up crashing, rebuilding, and repeating the same cycle. It makes it pretty hard to know which projects you can actually trust.

Some of my friends use airdrops as their exit strategy, and honestly, that’s a valid approach. But sometimes I feel like that kind of move might hold back future progress a little.
As for me, I’ve kept all the airdrops I’ve received, mostly because I genuinely liked those projects and was involved since the testnet days.

Of course, the big airdrop I got from Berachain is already down over 95% since TGE, and I didn’t get anything from Monad… but I guess that’s just part of how things go in this industry.

Still, I feel like the bigger problem isn’t whether individuals win or lose on airdrops. It’s that some projects disappear without any explanation, or launch a token just to drain funds and run, or do things like aPriori did—basically taking advantage of the Monad community.
When users leave, it’s usually because something is seriously off on the project side.

To be honest, if it weren’t for 10k squad and Neverland, I probably would’ve left Monad too. I kept hearing that the Monad community was supposed to be strong, but all I saw for a while were groups acting like scammers.
Personally, I think the minimum for a good project is having stable funding that doesn’t rely on squeezing users, building something people truly want to use, and growing it together with a real, honest community.

And just to add—new chains popping up all the time is fun, but I’d love to see smoother chain upgrades so things don’t feel so chaotic.
Plus, if we start seeing movements where chains begin to merge or unify in some way, that would be really exciting to watch.

[hypermassiv]

What’s funny is that if you put this into context outside of crypto, it seems almost laughable.

Imagine this: I just started a company and I need people to “use, test, and promote” (I put quotation marks because it is debatable whether these actions are actually performed by airdrop farmers) my product. In return, I’ll give you shares in the company with no vesting schedule and fully liquid.

See how ridiculous that sounds? Somehow this is accepted as the norm in our industry.

[blev.o]

Fascinating subject to me. I agree that the gamification gamification for and interacting with all a protocol in order to earn points for a future airdrop is flawed in so many ways. However it can work if done properly.

The biggest problem is when people is that people (teens, airdrop farmers) often have very little capital invested in an acosystem..then they become a Discord/X raving fan of the protocol. They are rewarded with an airdrop, sell and then vanish! In no way is this healthy for the ecosystem. However, protocols like Jupiter and Altira, do it right.
Post airdrop, protocols should have a token locking incentive or something to discourage the immediate flipping of air drops.

[soomostaziev]

Real products, real engagement, real returns, I sure want more but still way better than waiting for an airdrop… you gotta love neverland !

[hypermassiv]

Yes, such mercenary behavior is very prevalent and it’s one of the main reasons why I am such a opponent of airdrops. Even if you give them locking incentives, most will just sell and move on because their main goal is not to use your product, it is to extract whatever little they can from your protocol for their own means.

I am not against trying to make a living in Web3, however this is not the way to do it. I think many protocols would gladly pay for proper writeups and videos, or for users with actual clout within an ecosystem to promote them. But instead, a lot of the “work” done by these so-called KOLs and farmers are low effort AI slop.

[soomostaziev]

Quite true ! Putting it this way, web3 misses trust, and airdrop is about hope, quite different,

[hypermassiv]

Airdrop is about hope.

This pretty much sums up the problem. As a farmer, you have a certain kind of expectation of how much you want to be “paid” (I hate this term with a passion) for the “work” you do, whether it is creating AI slop content or being the biggest shill of your coin.

And many many many times, we’ve seen that once the airdrop value doesn’t meet this expectation or somehow the airdrop is vested or locked, then immediately a whole wave of backlash and FUD comes crashing.

If you think about it, having something is better than nothing, yet people still get mad. The only reason is because people already have a $ value in mind for the effort they voluntarily put in, and hope the airdrop meets this or exceeds it. No different from doing work first, and hope to get paid later.

My argument mainly centers around the fact that if we want our industry to grow up, then instead of doing this, protocols should just pay for actual, proper, work. And what I mean by this is upfront paying for proper testers who will give detailed and comprehensive reports and will try all ways and means to break the product. Or people who have actual knowledge about certain topics to create content that teaches others why your product is better.

[Cryptofic]

Here’s what people would do with airdrop: Receive and sell it right away. Those who hold will say “hoooold!” and get angry later because the price is crashing. Bad situation all around for the project. UNLESS - there’s a ‘forced’ locking period and/or penalties for paper-hand airdrop receivers.

[safe_onchain]

This last paragraph just sums up the whole argument.
This is the part people miss about airdrop culture.

If I’m using a product, it should be because I’ve done my research and genuinely believe in the team, the tech, the vision, and the problem they’re trying to solve not because I’m calculating a future payout in my head.

We can see that rn, participation in crypto has started to feel less like conviction and more like speculative labor.

And that changes the culture completely.

Instead of people thinking about how they can help improve this product or ecosystem, they are worried more about how much they will be paid for interacting.

That mindset is exactly why every underwhelming airdrop turns into a full outrage on the tl

Many people are not actually users. They are temporary mercenaries optimizing for extraction, and that’s why many end up not learning or growing in the industry they claim to be native to.

If the industry truly wants to mature, protocols should separate genuine contributors from reward hunters.

Pay actual researchers to stress test products. Pay real educators to create meaningful content. Pay developers, analysts, designers, and community operators directly for measurable contributions.

That’s why I respect protocols that directly hire contributors more than protocols that indirectly bait engagement through speculative rewards.

But organic users? They should exist because the product itself is valuable.

Airdrops can still work as appreciation. The problem starts when appreciation becomes expectation.

[cdp5280]

I personally think the only rewards I need is by actually participating in the protocol via lending and locking…personally just me i dont want to do meaningless tasks thru my day or hope to get free money. Id rather to meaningful things with my life. Money is not everything. Is it needed in this world unfortunately yes. And I am absolutely thankful and blessed for the financial freedom Neverland has offered. Personally id rather just have faith in the protocol and the team that they know what they are doing and their intentions seem to be aligned with how I see them interact with the community. Just me. Have a wonderful day all

[hypermassiv]

You and I both

I’m a firm believer in using protocols for their intended purpose, and not in hopes of any future payout for “participating”.

[hkay]

same story, i didnt make it anything from monad on other side in start, i got stuck in a scam link & got phished around 50$ worth of eth, i guess its the fees that i paid for what i become after that, i am a student and 50$ is worthy for me atleast..

i start accumulating mons, recently i decided to invest in neverland and over the period of time i build my strong portfolio gradually..

[hkay]

well its a great platform to learn from the experience individual like you.