We're not some kind of scam, I'm telling you for sure (c) Director of Starknet

Starknet: More Than a Mere Illusion

Starknet stands out as a thriving ecosystem teeming with potential and the promise of future rewards. That’s why every power user, every newbie, and every Sybil decided to contribute into this ecosystem. But what is it about Starknet that has garnered such widespread interest?

First off, the backing of heavyweight investors such as Paradigm, ConsenSys, Sequoia, and Ethereum Foundation has infused the project with a touch of glamour.

Second, Starknet has bagged a whopping $283 million in investments from a variety of sponsors, showcasing robust financial backing.

Lastly, in the summer of 2022, the project announced a token launch, marking a pivotal moment. And from that moment on, every power user, every newbie... you get the idea.

However, there is an opinion within the crypto community that Starknet is a Dark Horse in the crypto space—a non-EVM chain with nearly half the number of addresses compared to zkSync, for example.

It seems the path to redefining its image involves recognizing and fairly compensating the contributions of its community. Now, let's dive into the Starknet airdrop specifics.

Starknet: A Potential Disappointment of the Year?

Imagine this: 2 ETH, $10,000, $20,000— that's the investment range from some of Starknet's most engaged users since the token launch was announced. And their reward? A big fat zero.

Post-February 14th, the crypto realm split into two camps: those who hit the jackpot with Starknet, including Sybils and single or dual-account holders, and those who came up empty. Despite their differing fortunes, the shock at Starknet's airdrop criteria united them. Only a fraction of the community got a piece of the pie, thanks to a peculiar requirement: maintaining a minimum of 0.005 ETH to be eligible for the airdrop. Plus, they needed to show three months of active engagement, execute over five transactions, and surpass a $100 transaction volume.

Interestingly, even if that 0.005 ETH was tied up in staking, it wouldn't count towards meeting the criteria. And those who staked their ETH in Starknet's protocols or held stablecoin equivalents were out of luck for the airdrop. A significant chunk of on-chain activity, therefore, got sidelined. Fairness, anyone?

There seemed to be little rivalry within Starknet's ecosystem, given the relatively low active address count. The consensus was to keep on contributing, stay loyal, and help the ecosystem grow and prove its worth to investors, with rewards naturally following suit.

But Starknet decided to play by a different set of rules. The community backed them, mostly out of a spirit of volunteerism. This might seem routine if not for the significant impact of airdrop experiences. Take Arbitrum, for example, which hosted one of the most successful airdrops in 2023. Could Starknet not take a leaf out of its book?

Here's a kicker: Despite Starknet's outlined measures to thwart Sybil attacks and reward genuine contributions, the reality was somewhat anticlimactic. Dedicated users with a single main account, over $100 in volume, more than 5 transactions, and investments in various Starknet projects ended up with less than 0.005 ETH and no STRK rewards.

We've seen some eyebrow-raising cases:

• A user with merely 2 transactions snagged 360K STRK.

• A Sybil with 1361 wallets bagged 1,432,800 STRK—nearly $3M worth.

What do Sybils think?

For a glimpse into the community's reaction to Starknet's airdrop, just peek at the comments under their Twitter announcement.

On the brighter side, there are satisfied Sybils who managed to secure up to 180 STRK for each of their accounts. Yet, not all Sybils were as fortunate.

We're essentially spotlighting the uneven token distribution, swayed by a singular factor that arguably shouldn't have held such sway. Let's bring in the experts! Meet Brelgin: a 150-account holder, crypto aficionado, and seasoned airdrop hunter. What's the verdict from the Sybils?

"Starknet, along with other TrustaLabs-utilizing projects, has been criticized for opaque allocation criteria. Initially, the guidelines seemed nebulous at best, leading to public dissatisfaction and a subsequent broadening of the criteria. Still, the lack of verifiable data remained a sticking point.

Of the 150 identical accounts I’ve created, a mere 10 got lucky. This discrepancy casts doubts on the selection process, especially when you hear about an account landing 360 thousand STRK tokens off just two network transactions.

TrustaLabs and Starknet launched an 'Early Community Members' form, dangling extra tokens for early birds. Yet, the disparity between the number of applications and actual link clicks has raised eyebrows over the process's integrity."

What is the Justice?

So, what's the lowdown? Are token transactions alone enough to weigh someone's value in gold? Do airdrops fulfill their intended purpose, and are the outcomes justifiable?

It appears the real MVPs, deserving the lion's share, might actually be the developers and core contributors. But will this incentive keep them engaged in ecosystem development post-airdrop?

Here's where we stand: community members are pouring their time and effort into supporting projects as if it's their day job, anticipating compensation for every task. Unlike traditional employment, which has clear-cut compensation rules, the crypto space is still feeling its way around what norms to establish.

In this domain, we're all about onchain activity. Recognizing and rewarding based on this metric could speak volumes. After all, onchain activity doesn't lie and nothing speaks louder than it.

What do those balances and volumes indicate? Primarily, they're a measure of a user's wealth. But it's investors who best gauge this metric—by funneling funds into projects, they pave the way for substantial growth opportunities. It's up to the users to demonstrate the project's magnitude, commitment level, and growth pace to investors. Each project, in turn, should evaluate user onchain activity to back this up.

We ought to move past ephemeral and surface-level metrics like wallet balances and transaction volumes. Instead, a deeper dive into factors such as wallet longevity, user proposals, and votes for ecosystem enhancement should take precedence.

For insights into how an ideal algorithm could serve both projects and users alike, a forthcoming article will shed light on Nomis’ Math Machine's approach to evaluating wallet scores.

We have our own vision on how Starknet could best reward users, and an article on this topic will be coming soon.

And as we look ahead…what's next for Starknet after the STRK claim period wraps up and we step into the DeFi Spring?