You’re a developer building a new token-based product.

Your goal is to acquire users for your product. You’re considering an airdrop as a tactic to do this.

User A 
History of not selling airdrops immediately.

User B
Sells most airdrops immediately.

You can only airdrop to one. Which one do you choose?

I can see why this implication is painful for users who have sold some of their past airdrops, but why are some builders so vehement about defending B?

It’s obvious that people don’t want to give their token to people who will immediately sell it. If they wanted this “volume” they could just sell it themself.

helping /bracky, playing /bracket reading /greatbooks

Startup artist seeking inspiration.  Champion of /bcard

Some of the arguments seem to come from people (eg, founders) who I don’t think care THAT much about keeping the $7 stream going

Many of these airdrops don’t actually give you something to do with the token.

$wct could immediately be staked which likely increased WalletConnect’s decentralization metric.

$crcs only allowed me to swap in the mini app…soooo they are actually encouraging me to sell it 😂 

Unsure what it’s for but if it’s a governance token show me where I can vote/stake whatever.

Maybe best to add another column to the binary:

1) best recipient — holds and uses
2) next best — sells but still uses
3) meh — holds and ignores you
4) worst — sells and ignores


A question for me is whether we believe many people fall into group 2 — eg sell but somehow end up trying out your app anyways.

Haha well the OP IS a pretty opinionated framing.  I agree with people who say holding/selling airdrops is not the primary metric you might look at.