Actually, it's pointless to criticize the Alpha Point rules at this stage. I believe no exchange would want to offend the majority of users and provoke public anger. Perhaps the product manager was misled by bad actors... 😂
First, it should be known that it's almost impossible to filter out studios because they have the funds to invest in scoring and nurturing accounts. In the past, during testing phases of projects like 毛圈, with unknown returns and years of cycles, they managed to persist in interaction. Not to mention Alpha, where scoring guarantees airdrop opportunities.
The original intention of setting rules was to prevent fake users from taking advantage, but later it ended up filtering out real users, leaving only big accounts and studios. Now Alpha has moved from positive incentives to the situation of 'unable to accept large amounts of wear and tear, thus disqualifying'.
I can understand stimulating users to increase trading volume to accumulate points; good data can also help request more tokens from the project team. However, excessive measures can backfire. Trading volume and activity are accumulated little by little by each small retail investor. If the point threshold is too hard to meet and drives most people away—causing even resentment towards Binance—that would be the biggest loss. The Alpha product manager should reflect and adjust, continuously seeking better solutions.
With the current high threshold + point deduction strategy, it will only deter newcomers to Binance Alpha, as missing a day means falling behind, leading small fund users to give up directly. After 15 days of hard work, the result is just a cold 'not meeting the criteria'.
Moreover, from the reactions of so many retail investors, the product manager should realize one thing: '1100u balance + daily 4096u trading volume, a few u of wear and tear for an uncertain airdrop' is unacceptable for most users. Even if they can accept it, increasing trading volume still won't guarantee they can catch up.
If we make further changes, for example:
1/ Appropriately lower the threshold
2/ Exclude or extend the rule to only accumulate for 15 days
3/ Appropriately raise the points deducted for each participation based on the above conditions
For small funds and new users, as long as they continue to put in effort, they can have a piece of Alpha's benefits. Wouldn't that be more acceptable? Those with more points, after participating in several rounds, if their score isn't enough, will have to compete, thus achieving a balancing effect.
However, I feel that the reason Alpha keeps raising the threshold may be: If everyone can participate, then the airdrop opportunity becomes diluted and worthless. But this contradiction of raising the threshold cannot be solved; shouldn't the product manager consider designing a more detailed airdrop mechanism?
For example, distributing tokens based on point ranges; the benefit of this mechanism is that it lets users know it's not about 'qualifying' but 'the more you invest, the more you get'.
Add a facial recognition verification when claiming, which could discourage some purchased KYC accounts.
Raising the threshold excessively is not a long-term solution; transforming the 'despair-inducing deterrent' mechanism into a 'hopeful effort threshold' is the only way for Alpha products to preserve both data and reputation.