re: airdrop discourse. typically you receive an airdrop because either 1) you used a protocol pre-TGE 2) your wallet qualifies due to past activity. 1 usually results in a much larger allocation than 2.

these airdrops organized by merkle have mostly been the latter so makes sense that they are small and selective since they’re trying to optimize the token allocation like marketing spend or cust acq. yeeting 5-6 figures of tokens is a big expense for devs.

that said, imo we should also aim to reward prolific, retentive miniapp usage since these are the users most likely to try new products. and there are likely ways to refine this criteria beyond buying/selling past airdrops.

easier said than done, though. fair distribution and finding the “right” users is not a new problem for tokens. nobody has bad intentions here imo.

My 2c on Airdrop-Selling drama:

+ I worked with Merkle on an Airdrop. They didn't impose their criteria on us, they helped us to set *our* critieria.

+ Therefore, I think many people are mistakingly taking Dan's comment as a threat "from Dan" when, in fact, it is his observation of what Airdrop Teams will decide for their self-interest.

+ And I'd say Dan's point is directionally correct – giving airdrops that seem likely to be insta-sold is less appealing to Teams than the opposite.

+ However, selling does *not* have to overwhelm all other criteria. Eg, if someone is a power-user of many apps and tokens like @tricil.eth, this may be more important to a Team than whether he sold a drop or not.

tldr: Dan's point clearly has merit, but Airdrop Criteria is a unique decision made by each Team (not by Merkle!)

playing /bracket, assisting /bracky, talking /greatbooks

Farcaster-native research: https://paragraph.xyz/@matthewb | prev. Juicebox, Nouns, RAW DAO | casting about coffee, hi-fi, and other rabbit holes

good take by @tldr along similar lines: https://farcaster.xyz/tldr/0x16c7bf42