I am so surprised at the modus operandi of some airdrops recently. Airdrops have deviated from their original intention to a money-making project. Gone are the days when airdrops were known as free money to those who engaged in farming. Airdrop projects are now involved in spontaneous demands for money so that participants can have a huge allocation from the project. However, my problem is not their demands for money but the dishonesty that thrives in the system needs to be investigated. For instance, some projects will request participants to subscribe to a premium account which goes for a certain amount of money but when the tokens are allocated, such a person will not get even the equivalent of the money he spent on the project. This is evil that needs to be checked mated, because if this is not done, then we should rest assured that telegram play to earn game will start losing its credibility and at the same time, it will affect the web3 space as well. I might be wrong though, but I think that airdrops were supposed to be free, and if it’s the other way round, then it shouldn’t be called airdrop but a different name. maybe an investment platform or whatever ever name that suit its activity
It seems that it’s becoming a norm that recent telegram plays-to-earn games have resorted to demanding participants to pay for some services in their ecosystem. However, this request is not compulsory but has a way of affecting the outcome of the earnings, and I think going this way is not the best option in the cryptocurrency space. and I want to urge project owners to look into it because it does not birth equality in the system. Think about how an early adopter will farm a project at an early stage then another who just joined the project at the end of it will earn more than the other who started at the beginning. This is not fair. To birth equality which almost of projects emphasize, then there is a need for everyone to be given a leveling playing ground. Notwithstanding, I have noticed that most projects demanding certain payment in their platforms are the worst-performing projects in terms of token allocation and the value they have in the web3 community. In the end, these projects end up becoming #dust as popularly described by many.
When a project begins to tell people to pay for this and subscribe for that, it only points to the fact that it might be a failed project. I have participated in many airdrop projects and I have come to realized that any project that will thrive and pay users are less stressful and does not require people to pay or anything. This year, take a look at projects like #notcoin #dogs, etc. These are projects that have drawn the attention of many people to the web3 space because of the way they operate. Project owners should ensure that they are capable of undertaking the financial demands of their projects before putting it to the public and start demanding money from people that they will still pay back at the end of the day. This is the reason most of these projects lose value immediately after they are launched.
Posted Using InLeo Alpha