Towns Airdrop Sparks Controversy: Community Builders Receive Far Lower Shares Than Exchange Users

Recently, the highly anticipated Web3 project Towns launched its token generation event (TGE) and opened up Airdrop claims. However, this Airdrop did not elicit the expected cheers from the community; instead, it attracted a lot of criticism and dissatisfaction.

Many users have raised sharp criticisms about the airdrop mechanism: the points are not proportional to the amount of airdrop, and the activity level has not received reasonable compensation; users who have insisted on signing in for several months received even fewer airdrops than participants in certain exchange platform activities; the tokens received need to be staked for 30 days to obtain an additional 50%, and it is questionable whether this part counts towards the airdrop share; many real users have been mistakenly identified as "witch" accounts, etc.

By analyzing on-chain data and official airdrop query websites, it is shocking to find the situation of the top ten addresses on the leaderboard. Among them, addresses ranked 5th to 9th, despite having millions of points, have completely failed to qualify for airdrops. Even more surprising is that the top address, with over 15 million points, received less than 15,000 TOWNS tokens, worth approximately $600 at current market prices. Even the address that received the most airdrops among the top ten only received 150,000 tokens, valued at about $6,000. Considering that these users may have invested large amounts of money in paid towns, it is likely that they have not even recovered their principal.

According to community feedback, only about 3% of the 9.8% Airdrop share announced by the Towns official was allocated to community point users. Another 3% was given to coin holders on a certain exchange, 1-2% was allocated to special program participants on that platform, and the remaining portion may have gone to activities of other centralized exchanges. This allocation method clearly deviates from the original intention of valuing the community.

What is even more puzzling is that the core users who spent months participating in community building and signing in daily received fewer Airdrops than some exchange users who have never interacted with Towns. This not only disregards individual contributions but also reveals the project's indifference to the value of real users.

This trend has raised questions about the "decentralization" concept of Web3 projects. In order to launch more centralized exchanges at TGE, some projects seem to view genuine community contributors as "electronic beggars" while treating exchange users as "honored guests." However, it is those community users who are willing to participate and support in the long term that form the foundation for the project's continued development.

If even the core community cannot benefit from the project, how long can the "decentralized narrative" that Web3 projects pride themselves on last? This question deserves serious contemplation from the entire industry.