Sonic Labs locks 75% of airdrop tokens in NFTs requiring 270-day unlock period with burn penalties for early withdrawal attempts.
Community outrage erupts as users face liquidity hostage situation, with some losing 66% of tokens for early redemption access.
New airdrop trend emerges using psychological manipulation and NFT lock-ups to shift from user incentives to capital control mechanisms.
Sonic Labs’ $S token airdrop locks 75% of tokens in NFTs for 270 days with burn penalties, creating controversy over liquidity restrictions and user exploitation concerns.
CONTROVERSY SWIRLS: WHEN AIRDROPS BECOME “LIQUIDITY HOSTAGES”
On June 3, Sonic Labs dropped a bombshell: announcing the airdrop rules for 190.5 million $S tokens, with 25% available for immediate claim and the remaining 75% locked into NFTs, requiring a 270-day linear unlock period. What sparked even more outrage was an additional clause—if users withdraw early, the unlocked portion will trigger a burn penalty.
An angry community member shared a screenshot on Discord: to redeem 33% of the locked tokens early, he was forced to “sacrifice” 66% of his airdrop allocation. “This is like using my money to hold me hostage and then demanding a ransom!” This complaint was shared over a thousand times within 24 hours. The project team defended the move as a way to “counter selling pressure,” but criticism has poured in like a tidal wave.
TRIPLE GAMBLE UNDER THE GUISE OF INNOVATION
Liquidity Deprivation vs. Speculative Haven
Users suddenly found themselves trapped in a “time prison”: the 270-day lock-up period meant they had to endure market volatility and the risk of missing out on other opportunities. Meanwhile, the PaintSwap platform swiftly launched an fNFT trading market, allowing unclaimed airdrop NFTs to be freely bought and sold. In the secondary market, some are acquiring $S airdrop NFTs at a “bargain price” of 0.2 USD per token (currently priced at 1.7 USD), betting on price differentials six months later. The liquidity crisis has instead fueled arbitrage frenzy.
Deflationary Lies vs. Power Black Hole
The project claims that the burning mechanism can “deflate and increase value,” but the tokens lost by users directly enter a black hole and are not used for buybacks. More concerning is that the Sonic Foundation retains the unilateral right to issue additional $S tokens after six months, ostensibly for “ecosystem development,” yet there are no transparent oversight provisions. The balance of power has quietly shifted.
Developer Feast vs. User Burden
Upon closer examination of the economic model, Sonic allocates 90% of on-chain application transaction fees to developers (traditional public chains typically allocate less than 50%), with this funding actually derived from users’ Gas fees. The airdrop lock-up mechanism serves as a “blood transfusion strategy” to attract developers—exchanging ordinary users’ liquidity for ecosystem cold starts.
THE EVOLUTION OF AIRDROPS: FROM MONEY-THROWING TO “PUA-STYLE BINDING”
Looking back at the 2024 “no-lockup airdrops” from Uniswap, Avalanche, and others that triggered a sell-off tsunami (UNI plummeted 37% on its launch day), project teams have clearly become “smarter.” Sonic’s case reveals a new trend:
Lockup NFT-ization: Shifting liquidity pressure to the secondary market;
Behavioral manipulation: Encouraging users to “accelerate unlocking through on-chain activities,” effectively requiring continuous interaction;
Psychological manipulation: Utilizing the “loss aversion” psychology through burning mechanisms to force users into passive long-term holding;
Industry analysts cut to the chase: “As airdrops degenerate from ‘universal incentives’ into ‘capital hunting,’ the Web3 narrative of user sovereignty is collapsing.”
BREAKING THE DEADLOCK: NAVIGATING THROUGH THE THORNS
Despite complex rules, ordinary users still have room to maneuver.
Calculate time costs: If the annualized volatility of $S exceeds 60% (referencing historical data of similar tokens), the returns from holding locked NFTs may be lower than immediate liquidation;
Target discounted NFTs: Capture panic selling in the fNFT market, but assess whether the project’s TVL can support the value (current Sonic TVL: $980 million);
Hedging with derivatives: Short an equivalent amount of $S on a derivatives platform to hedge against the risk of locked NFTs depreciating, but be mindful of funding rate losses.
THE MAGICIAN’S HAT AND THE SHACKLES OF TRUST
Sonic’s airdrop design is like a meticulously choreographed magic trick: one hand holds aloft the banner of “ecosystem stability,” while the other locks users into a liquidity cage. When NFTs transform from symbols of innovation into capital shackles, we must ask—is this technological evolution, or a new guise for exploitation? The answer may lie 270 days hence. If ecological promises go unfulfilled, what is locked today is not just tokens, but the fragile foundation of trust in the industry.
〈Sonic Labs Airdrop Controversy: NFT Lock-Up Mechanism Sparks Community Outrage〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。
