@haleykelsen

Some projects conduct secondary airdrops to address distribution errors, such as excluding eligible participants or rewarding wrong addresses. This typically happens when communities highlight mistakes and governance processes demand corrections. However, not all projects provide retroactive fixes, as logistics and fairness concerns may complicate the process. To assess likelihood, one should review the team’s history of transparency, governance mechanisms, and treasury capacity. Projects with strong reputations often compensate missed users to maintain trust. Others may argue that strict deadlines prevent endless claims. Ultimately, while secondary airdrops do occur, they are exceptions rather than guarantees. Users should avoid relying on retroactive compensation and instead ensure active, timely participation in eligibility activities.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction