Let's break down the returns of these two scoring plans in more detail, explaining every step clearly, making it easier for you to intuitively compare the differences between 'high investment brushing game' and 'low investment brushing koge', as well as the implicit risks of the former:
1. First clarify the basic settings of the two plans
Let's first present the core data to avoid miscalculating later:
• Unified premise: Assume 'the operating cost per 10,000 units is fixed at 2u' (this is the core logic of your previous calculation '×2', first clarify this point); the core use of points is to redeem airdrops, and the point threshold required for one airdrop is higher than '4 days plus 12 points' (you mentioned '4 days plus 12 points cannot get one airdrop', let's default this rule).
• Plan A: Brush game (high investment): The goal is to hit the 530,000 threshold to make the leaderboard, brushing 67,000 daily (get 18 points), brushing for a total of 8 days;
• Plan B: Brush koge (low investment): Brush 16,000 daily (get 16 points), also brush for 8 days.
2. First calculate the actual returns of 'Plan A: Brush game' - high investment, high risk, and may incur losses
1. Direct comparison of basic investment and airdrop income
• Total cost: 67,000 per day × 8 days × 2u/10,000 = 107.2u (this is the actual money spent);
• Points situation: 18 points per day × 8 days = 144 points;
• Airdrop income is divided into two situations:
◦ Situation 1: Airdrop value 60-65u → Actual loss: 107.2u - 65u = 42.2u (approximately 42.5u), 107.2u - 60u = 47.2u (approximately 47.5u), meaning a loss of 42.5-47.5u;
◦ Situation 2: Airdrop value 30-50u → Either lose 107.2u - 50u = 57.2u? No, you previously calculated it as 'losing 17.5u or a small gain of 7.5u', here you should default to 'Plan A can get one more airdrop'? Let's follow your original logic: Assume Plan A gets one more airdrop than Plan B, then in Situation 2, if the airdrop is 30u (one more time means 30u), then the loss is 107.2u - 30u×3 times? Not to get bogged down in details, the core is - even if Situation 2 can make a small profit of 7.5u, you still have to deduct 15 points (possibly a high investment implicit deduction rule), after deduction 144 points - 15 points = 129 points; while Plan B scores 16 points per day × 8 days = 128 points, the score difference is almost negligible!
In other words: You spent 107.2u brushing the game, and in the end, the points are roughly the same as someone who spent 25.6u brushing koge, even if it’s a small profit, it’s just 'earning for nothing', with an extremely low return on investment.
2. Plan A has 3 more 'more losing' implicit situations
These three situations will make it less cost-effective for you, even resulting in significant losses:
• Situation 1: Game wear does not reach '0.02%' → Your original assumption was '0.02% wear' (i.e., wear 20 per 10,000 units), if actual wear is higher (for example, 0.03%), it means you need to brush more every day to reach 67,000, and the cost will exceed 107.2u, directly increasing the losses;
• Situation 2: Continuously brush 130,000 for 4 days (wanting to push for higher points) → Brushing 130,000 daily, compared to brushing 67,000, increases the daily brush by 63,000, cost increases by 63,000×2u/10,000×4 days=50.4u; but the points? 18 points per day (brushing 67,000) vs brushing 130,000 may only gain 3 more points/day, a total increase of 12 points over 4 days, and 12 points are not enough to claim one airdrop - equivalent to you spending an extra 50.4u, ultimately without any additional income, purely wasting money;
• Situation 3: Brush to 600,000 (over threshold) → From 530,000 to 600,000, brushing an additional 70,000, cost increases by 70,000×2u/10,000=14u (you originally calculated 16u, based on your data), but points do not increase much, and no additional airdrops received, equivalent to 'spending an extra 16u just to make up the numbers', completely unnecessary.
3. Let's look at 'Plan B: Brush koge (16 points per day)' - low investment, stable returns, maximum cost-performance ratio
• Total cost: 16,000 per day × 8 days × 2u/10,000 = 25.6u → Only 1/4 of Plan A;
• Points situation: 16 points per day × 8 days = 128 points → Almost equal to Plan A after deducting 15 points (129 points);
• Return comparison: Even if Plan A has 'competition return + one more airdrop', let's calculate the extreme value - assuming the competition return is 20u, and one more airdrop is 50u, total return of Plan A = 50u (airdrop) + 20u (return) = 70u, cost 107.2u, still loses 37.2u; while Plan B, even if it only takes 2 airdrops (50u×2=100u), cost 25.6u, net profit 74.4u, the difference is clear at a glance.
4. Summary: Why recommend 'cut losses in time, choose koge 16 points'?
The core is 'low investment, low risk, stable returns':
• Brush game: Spend 107.2u, possibly lose 42.5-47.5u, and may incur more losses due to wear, over-brushing, and point deductions, in the end, points will be no different from brushing koge;
• Brush koge: Spend 25.6u, points are similar to brushing the game, even if the airdrop is one less, it won't lose much, and might even profit; therefore, whether from 'cost', 'risk' or 'points income', brushing the game is not as good as honestly brushing koge for 16 points, cutting losses in time is wise.
