Airdrops remain a popular way to promote cryptocurrency projects, attracting attention and building user bases. However, not all campaigns are successful. The story of Hamster Combat is a prime example of how mismatched expectations and poor planning can lead to failure.
How did the Hamster Combat airdrop develop?
When I first learned about Hamster, it seemed like an innovative and promising platform. The tasks on the platform resembled an economic game, where participants were offered to buy and develop cards — key elements of the cryptocurrency system. Essentially, everyone was building their own crypto world, increasing its economic efficiency.
It seemed that the platform had considered everything for engagement: quality educational content, relevant crypto news on YouTube, and daily tasks that kept interest through decoding code words or finding 'cards of the day'. I was inspired by this concept.
Many participants, like me, were fueled by the success of Telegram Notcoin (TON), an airdrop that provided decent rewards to participants. It seemed that Hamster Combat would be the next triumph: active advertising, an attractive referral system, and an unusual game format allowed the campaign to gather over 130 million participants.
I joined the project in May with enthusiasm and expectations. The first month of participation was truly exciting. I enjoyed opening cards, searching for hints, and competing with other users. However, over time everything changed: the team's ambitions did not meet expectations, and completing tasks became a real ordeal...
Main problems of Hamster Combat
Excessive hype. Initially, the tasks seemed like a fresh idea, but soon they became a routine. Solutions to all puzzles and ciphers started appearing in communities, along with offers to buy referrals. This deprived the process of competitive intrigue and turned task completion into a mundane mechanic.
Greed of the hamster. After a few weeks, the tasks became more complicated. Stages for obtaining keys appeared, requiring activity on third-party platforms. The platforms themselves turned out to be primitive games, and the enormous amount of intrusive advertising only slowed down the process and caused irritation. It was a real test of patience...
Prolonged deadlines. When I started, the campaign promised to end in July 2024. But in reality, token listings were not happening, and the developers remained silent. Only at the end of September did the listing become a reality. This lack of clarity demotivated not only me but many other participants.
Disproportionate rewards. I was one of those who completed tasks daily for four months, and my reward amounted to only about 11 euros. It was so disproportionate to the efforts expended that I wondered why I even spent so much time. Many participants received even less, and their disappointment only intensified the negativity surrounding the project.
Transparency issues. Another significant problem with Hamster Combat was complete opacity. None of the participants knew what the total budget of the campaign was, how rewards were distributed, and how many people were involved in the process.
Participants' questions went unanswered. When people began to express dissatisfaction, the developers chose a strategy of ignoring them. This attitude from the team only exacerbated distrust and triggered mass criticism in the crypto community.
How did this affect the industry?
The failure of Hamster Combat became a cautionary tale for the crypto industry. It influenced attitudes towards airdrops in general:
• Decline in trust towards Telegram airdrops. After this incident, participants began to approach projects conducting campaigns on Telegram with caution.
• Strengthening requirements for transparency. Users began to expect clearer conditions and guarantees when participating in such campaigns.
• Decrease in Telegram's popularity as a platform. Projects began to look for new ways to attract an audience, moving away from Telegram as the primary tool.
What does this teach us?
For participants:
• Assess the project's reputation. Research reviews and share experiences with others before participating.
• Balance efforts and rewards. If tasks seem too complicated or unclear, consider whether it's worth spending time on them.
For creators:
1. Plan the budget. Rewards should meet participants' expectations.
2. Be transparent. Participants should understand what they are getting and how much.
3. Meet deadlines. Delaying campaigns decreases engagement and undermines trust.
4. Remove excessive advertising. Tasks should be engaging, not irritating.
***
Hamster Combat started with great ambitions but became an example of how excessive hype and poor planning can destroy a promising project.
My experience showed that even the most promising platform without transparency and a fair approach is doomed to fail. This case should serve as a lesson for all developers: respect for participants and clear conditions are not just wishes but the foundation of a successful crypto project.
