AİRDROP

🎁 The Airdrop Paradox: Reward for the User, Punishment for the Project?

At first glance, airdrops seem like a brilliant strategy: a way to reward the community, create rapid diffusion, and provide initial liquidity for the token. But behind the excitement of receiving "free money" lies a systemic problem that almost all projects end up paying.

90% of airdrop recipients are not holders; they are sellers.
They receive the token, claim it, and liquidate it instantly.
Why?
Because they feel no belonging or commitment to the project: they only participated for the reward.
This turns what should have been a boost in adoption into an immediate wave of downward pressure, just when the project needs stability and trust the most.

They erode the narrative.

A project that starts with a -25% or -40% in its first week of life not only loses price: it loses narrative authority.
The media and analysts do not talk about its technology or utility, but rather about the "post-airdrop crash."
And in a market dominated by perceptions, that first impression can be lethal for organic growth.

When airdrops coincide with listings on major platforms (like Binance HODLer or Web Airdrops), the phenomenon multiplies:
users claim, sell, and the chart collapses.
This does not reflect the real value of the project, but a simple technical effect of "oversupply without absorption."
For many external investors, however, the visual message is devastating: "the token collapsed; it must be bad."

Airdrops are a powerful tool misused.
While users celebrate small instant gains, projects carry a huge problem:
the destruction of their value narrative even before it can solidify.

In the crypto ecosystem, giving away tokens without control does not build community; it only creates downward pressure.
$ENSO