Alpha Ecology, the more rules, the more confused users?
Once upon a time, participating in the Alpha project guaranteed an airdrop,
Now, it has turned into a game of speed, scripts, and 'studio efficiency'.
We begin to wonder:
Are these layers of points and changing rules optimizing fairness, or causing frustration?
The root of the problem lies in the competition between 'real users vs. group-controlled studios'.
When rules are too loose, studios exploit benefits in bulk, diluting user rewards.
When rules are too strict, ordinary people are forced to 'grind points' to qualify.
'Grinding for the sake of grinding' has become the norm, losing the original value of contribution to the ecosystem.
The real breakthrough point may lie in making the rules a bit 'smarter', rather than 'more complex'.
We don’t need more and more operational thresholds,
Instead, we need the system to accurately identify the true characteristics of 'wool gatherers':
Abnormal device information, bulk registrations
Unnatural trading logic, single active behavior
Provide basic rewards to truly active users,
Link large incentives to 'real contributions', such as:
Retention time
Real interaction frequency
Feedback and promotional actions towards the ecosystem
Let’s not allow those who can 'grind enough points' to take the biggest piece of the cake.
Points should be redeemable for core services, not become an arbitrage tool.
Airdrops should target those who truly wish to stay, not traffic speculators.
The reward logic should be transparent and clear, even if it includes anti-cheat rules, some details should be made public.
The long-term value of Web3 relies not on 'grinding points', but on 'real retention'.
We are not afraid of difficulty, nor of many tasks,
But what we want is a participation logic that is 'solidly done, and安心 (peace of mind) received'.
Don’t let the rules scare away real users, leaving only 'smart studios' and 'silent on-chain data'.
