1) $ZKC (Boundless): “HODLer Airdrops” + multi-pair listing on day one
Entry funnel: Binance launched @Boundless via HODLer Airdrops (#39), distributing tokens to BNB holders prior to trading. Trading then opened with multiple pairs simultaneously (USDT, USDC, BNB, FDUSD, TRY).
Liquidity kickstart: This approach seeded tokens directly to active Binance users, ensuring immediate natural buy/sell activity. Multi-pair listings allowed faster price discovery and hedging opportunities across stables and native tokens.
Regional coverage: Beyond Binance’s USDT pairs, ZKC quickly expanded to Upbit/KRW, tapping into fiat-based liquidity in Korea and broadening demand sources.
Strategic message: ZKC targeted Binance’s core BNB community via HODLer Airdrops and reinforced demand by adding regional fiat liquidity early.
2) Comparisons with other Layer-2 listings: ZKsync (ZK), Starknet (STRK), Taiko (TAIKO), Manta (MANTA), Blast (BLAST)
a) ZKsync (ZK): Distribution Program + Seed Tag
Binance used a Token Distribution Program tailored for ZKsync instead of HODLer Airdrops.
A Seed Tag was applied to highlight trading risks, requiring periodic quizzes for user access.
Multi-pair listings included BTC, USDT, FDUSD, and TRY.
Difference vs. ZKC: ZKsync emphasized custom distribution + risk labeling, while ZKC leaned on BNB holder distribution and multi-pair + regional expansion.
b) Starknet (STRK): Standard listing + Seed Tag
Announced through Binance’s standard listing process, with multiple trading pairs.
A Seed Tag was applied immediately.
Difference vs. ZKC: STRK followed a standard model with risk labels, without pre-listing distribution funnels.
c) Taiko (TAIKO): “Binance Alpha” + airdrops & trading competitions
Introduced through Binance Alpha, giving early access via Alpha Points and exclusive airdrops.
Trading competitions boosted initial liquidity and engagement.
Difference vs. ZKC: Taiko incubated its community via Alpha before broader listing, while ZKC launched directly with HODLer Airdrops and multi-pair trading.
d) Manta (MANTA): Classic Launchpool model
Distributed tokens via Launchpool, allowing users to farm by staking BNB/FDUSD.
Wide distribution created a committed user base ahead of listing.
Listed with multiple pairs and applied a Seed Tag.
Difference vs. ZKC: Manta used farming pools to incentivize token holding, while ZKC distributed passively to BNB holders through HODLer Airdrops.
e) Blast (BLAST): Market maker-first approach
Prior to listing, Blast allocated significant token reserves to professional market makers (Wintermute, GSR, Amber, etc.), ensuring deep order book liquidity at launch.
Difference vs. ZKC: ZKC relied on community-driven distribution and regional fiat expansion, whereas Blast prioritized depth and stability through professional liquidity providers.
3) Lessons and cross-strategy takeaways
ZKC can learn from ZK/STRK/MANTA: adding stronger Seed Tag or risk education could improve investor protection and align with Binance standards.
ZKC can learn from Taiko: using Alpha-style early programs to incubate developer and builder communities.
ZKC can learn from Blast: ensuring strong market maker allocations to secure deep order books during volatile launch phases.
4) Conclusion: ZKC’s position in the “L2 listing race”
ZKC’s standout move was using HODLer Airdrops to distribute tokens directly to Binance’s BNB holders while simultaneously expanding regionally via KRW on Upbit.
Other Layer-2 projects pursued different paths:
ZK/STRK: risk labeling and standard listing.
MANTA: Launchpool farming.
TAIKO: Alpha incubation + community airdrops.
BLAST: deep liquidity through market makers.
In summary, ZKC’s strategy is best described as “multi-pair + BNB community distribution + regional fiat expansion”, while others leaned toward risk education, incubation, farming, or liquidity-first tactics. In the medium term, ZKC’s ability to sustain liquidity will depend on ecosystem catalysts (dApps, bridges, marketplaces) and expansion into derivatives and additional fiat pairs to keep inflows active.