All airdrops are ponzi schemes?

[POPEYE778]

My friend got $600 becaus just aof airdrop

[1714937114]

1714937114

[1714937114]

1714937114

[1714937114]

1714937114

[1714937114]

1714937114

[TheMuppet]

Airdrops are a brilliant way to build a network.

You could call it a "reverse ICO model".

The only way a token/coin takes off is if you have enough users.

By GIVING AWAY tokens, holders have the option of using it without investing any money upfront.

If they use it, and like it... a certain percentage will continue using it and become core users.

Best run Airdrop I've seen so far is in my SIG.

[VTS]

Airdrops are a brilliant way to build a network.

You could call it a "reverse ICO model".

The only way a token/coin takes off is if you have enough users.

By GIVING AWAY tokens, holders have the option of using it without investing any money upfront.

If they use it, and like it... a certain percentage will continue using it and become core users.

Best run Airdrop I've seen so far is in my SIG.

Well if you need to care a signature I wouldn't call it airdrop m8

That´s what 80% in this thread are saying...  Airdrop is FREE   caring a signature is a service and maybe called bounty!

[bitorama]

there was an airdrop for decred, but decred is really a good coin, so not all the airdrops are ponzi schemes

[Hyperme.sh]

I don't think airdrops are ponzi-schemes but they are premined scams.


People are trusting the devs that they'll distribute the coins fairly while there are no guarantees at all for that. And cryptos should be absolutely trustless so airdrops (and ICOs) are taking a huge step backwards.

Also, people can buy bitcointalk accounts (legal but discouraged) and participate in airdrops multiple times.

So the "devs" might have 50 sockpuppet accounts they ask coins to. It's basically the next iteration of the "x% premined" scam as it is not that transparent.

Apparently that is what NEM did. They try to deny it, but when it is pointed out that they refused to even use Facebook verified accounts, they just claim that verifications were done but don’t provide any independently verifiable objective proof.

And Byteball airdropped to exchanges who held so much BTC, so guess for yourself if any kickbacks were involved.

EOS runs a year long ICO “no rights token sale” ostensibly so they can buy said “tokens” from themselves.

Much better they did not try to hide the centralization of the money supply and the control over the ledger, e.g. Byteball’s 21 witnesses are thus elected and controlled by these whales (and thus receive all the transaction fee income).

there was an airdrop for decred, but decred is really a good coin

Seems I had a debate with them some months ago on BCT and it was analysed how their system is really designed for the whales to control and milk.

Y’all are so gullible.

I want to reiterate that even if the money supply of [OUR TOKEN] is centralized, the power over the consensus algorithm remains decentralized and controlled by the transacting majority (automatically & objectively, not by voting). This is what makes our decentralized ledger technology so superior as well as the performance.

[Xxmodded]

you are wrong, airdrop does not have a triangle scheme. not ponzi as you say, you should check first before you comment, I think need insight and knowledge ..

[star citizen]

-snip-
And Byteball airdropped to exchanges who held so much BTC, so guess for yourself if any kickbacks were involved.
-snip-

Since the beginning there was filtering mechanisms preventing this from happening. And it was further improved:

Inspired by my conversation with Aleš Janda (who is very knowledgeable in blockchain analysis and runs walletexplorer.com and chainalysis.com), there is a new rule for microtransaction-proven bitcoin addresses:

- if the address had more than 50 transactions in the last 3 days, it is rejected.  Linking by signature is still possible.

Such frequent transactions are common for exchanges and other shared wallets, and the rule prevents its customers from linking the shared address by doing a withdrawal.

This adds to the other two rules that serve the same purpose:
- if the microtransaction has more than 2 outputs, it is rejected (with the exception of Electrum 2fa transactions that have 3 outputs), because exchanges often aggregate several withdrawals into a single transaction
- if the same address was already linked before by another user, the new link is rejected and the old link is canceled.  This applies only to tx-proven addresses, and the reason for this rule is that for sufficiently popular exchanges, there will likely be more than one user who tries to cheat.

The two old rules were good enough at filtering large well known exchanges but a small number of addresses of smaller exchanges were still linked.  The new rule is to filter them too.

[pearlmen]

I personally never participated in any airdrop as there are voices around that ALL airdrops are ponzi schemes!

Whats your thought about this "statement"?

Can some1 give deeper insight and background info about the airdrop principle and why some people telling its a ponzi scheme or MLM technique?


We (Licensium Team) where thinking months back on airdrop but decided to go the ico way!



Thx in advance!

APPLY FOR OUR BOUNTIES: https://goo.gl/forms/2RUJKdzx9qbWi6Kj1
INFO ON BOUNTIES: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2224387
ANN: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2129844.0

Your argument is not only faulty but also wrong because we have seen several airdrops that have gone to be a mainstream currency and create a space for itself despite coming late. A perfect example I can think of now is GByte which was an airdrop and gained the confidence of the community and now I read where an ICO is accepting it as a means of payment along side will BTC, and ETH. To make assumption without any fault, there is need for proper understanding of what the project is all about.

[VTS]

you are wrong, airdrop does not have a triangle scheme. not ponzi as you say, you should check first before you comment, I think need insight and knowledge ..

I never said that! I ask why people saying that airdrops are ponzi schemes. You probably misread it! Thank you for your understanding!

[VTS]

I personally never participated in any airdrop as there are voices around that ALL airdrops are ponzi schemes!

Whats your thought about this "statement"?

Can some1 give deeper insight and background info about the airdrop principle and why some people telling its a ponzi scheme or MLM technique?


We (Licensium Team) where thinking months back on airdrop but decided to go the ico way!



Thx in advance!

APPLY FOR OUR BOUNTIES: https://goo.gl/forms/2RUJKdzx9qbWi6Kj1
INFO ON BOUNTIES: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2224387
ANN: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2129844.0

Your argument is not only faulty but also wrong because we have seen several airdrops that have gone to be a mainstream currency and create a space for itself despite coming late. A perfect example I can think of now is GByte which was an airdrop and gained the confidence of the community and now I read where an ICO is accepting it as a means of payment along side will BTC, and ETH. To make assumption without any fault, there is need for proper understanding of what the project is all about.

It is not my argument. I ask why some people saying that all airdrops are bonzi schemes. Please pay attention and not let me look like I attacked airdrops. I don´t . I ask to learn!!!

Thank you!

[Warren Buffert]

you are wrong, airdrop does not have a triangle scheme. not ponzi as you say, you should check first before you comment, I think need insight and knowledge ..

I never said that! I ask why people saying that airdrops are ponzi schemes. You probably misread it! Thank you for your understanding!

Why are people saying bitcoin and other coins are ponzi's? These things always start out with a small group of people whether you mine or airdrop or do an ico. Arguably they are all "ponzi's".

[alex_mercer]

Nobody reads the OP anymore? That's the problem with signature campaigns.

[VTS]

Nobody reads the OP anymore? That's the problem with signature campaigns.

Sadly but true! Thanks for pointing that out!

[alex_mercer]

Nobody reads the OP anymore? That's the problem with signature campaigns.

Sadly but true! Thanks for pointing that out!

Yeah man, that's another thing for mods and signature managers to keep an eye on.

These days it's all about the post count. It's creating mindless zombies.

[doothewop]

We (Licensium Team) where thinking months back on airdrop but decided to go the ico way!

Airdrops are free, ICOs usually require investment. It may not be the most original method
of distribution, but there's certainly nothing wrong with it, other than the fact that you will
tend to get the same recipients as every other airdrop.

ICO is way more "ponzi"-like than airdrops, provided the airdrops are free.

[itsv]

All ponzi schemes require some sort of investment in order to get return on your investment. And this system works as long as cash is flowing in the system new users are investing and old users getting paid. BUT in case of airdrops there is no need to invest its basically free money so you can't just compare it with ponzi scheme.

[co0ler]

When it comes to cryptos, it's all about transparency and fair distribution. An ICO can be a ponzi scheme, and airdrop can be a ponzi scheme, even a PoW coin can be a ponzi scheme, when the coin is instamined.

There are airdroped coins with terrible distribution, like NEM and Clams. And there are coins with a distribution much better designed, like Byteball. And some people forget that Decred also had an airdrop phase.

[CaesarCipher]

I doubt the fit the technical definition of a ponzi which is paying out old investors with funds provided by new investors. Whether they are a good way to distribute coins is of course debatable - but ponzi I would say no.

[Hyperme.sh]

-snip-
And Byteball airdropped to exchanges who held so much BTC, so guess for yourself if any kickbacks were involved.
-snip-

Since the beginning there was filtering mechanisms preventing this from happening. And it was further improved:

Inspired by my conversation with Aleš Janda (who is very knowledgeable in blockchain analysis and runs walletexplorer.com and chainalysis.com), there is a new rule for microtransaction-proven bitcoin addresses:

- if the address had more than 50 transactions in the last 3 days, it is rejected.  Linking by signature is still possible.

Such frequent transactions are common for exchanges and other shared wallets, and the rule prevents its customers from linking the shared address by doing a withdrawal.

This adds to the other two rules that serve the same purpose:
- if the microtransaction has more than 2 outputs, it is rejected (with the exception of Electrum 2fa transactions that have 3 outputs), because exchanges often aggregate several withdrawals into a single transaction
- if the same address was already linked before by another user, the new link is rejected and the old link is canceled.  This applies only to tx-proven addresses, and the reason for this rule is that for sufficiently popular exchanges, there will likely be more than one user who tries to cheat.

The two old rules were good enough at filtering large well known exchanges but a small number of addresses of smaller exchanges were still linked.  The new rule is to filter them too.

Oh come on. Well I’m glad you linked to that because I read it in the past and couldn’t find it again.

Afaics, that filtering rule is easily subverted. And most of the exchanges’ BTC are presumably in deeper storage any way, so the filtering rule will not help.

Besides, wasn’t that rule added far too late after the most economically significant air drops were already completed.

For such an important issue, where is the comprehensive document which explains all the filtering methods employed in sufficient, holistic detail and the timing that each was employed and the complete accounting of air drops and dates. We should not have to go searching in a very long project thread to try to dig out the details which are buried in posts.

Also we know for a fact they did not filter out Iconomi’s ill gotten, illegal security issued ICO hoard, because Iconomi wrote a Medium blog post about how they got 9.766% of the initial Byteball money supply.

“if you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”

(but really we’re just-us working together to build a better world, not scamming)

I guess what irritates me is pretending something is more egalitarian than it really is. I have no problem with admitting that egalitarianism is impossible, so why not be transparent about it. Why make these SJW-like lies to ourselves pretending what isn’t.

[star citizen]

-snip-
And Byteball airdropped to exchanges who held so much BTC, so guess for yourself if any kickbacks were involved.
-snip-

Since the beginning there was filtering mechanisms preventing this from happening. And it was further improved:

Inspired by my conversation with Aleš Janda (who is very knowledgeable in blockchain analysis and runs walletexplorer.com and chainalysis.com), there is a new rule for microtransaction-proven bitcoin addresses:

- if the address had more than 50 transactions in the last 3 days, it is rejected.  Linking by signature is still possible.

Such frequent transactions are common for exchanges and other shared wallets, and the rule prevents its customers from linking the shared address by doing a withdrawal.

This adds to the other two rules that serve the same purpose:
- if the microtransaction has more than 2 outputs, it is rejected (with the exception of Electrum 2fa transactions that have 3 outputs), because exchanges often aggregate several withdrawals into a single transaction
- if the same address was already linked before by another user, the new link is rejected and the old link is canceled.  This applies only to tx-proven addresses, and the reason for this rule is that for sufficiently popular exchanges, there will likely be more than one user who tries to cheat.

The two old rules were good enough at filtering large well known exchanges but a small number of addresses of smaller exchanges were still linked.  The new rule is to filter them too.

Oh come on. Well I’m glad you linked to that because I read it in the past and couldn’t find it again.

Afaics, that filtering rule is easily subverted. And most of the exchanges’ BTC are presumably in deeper storage any way, so the filtering rule will not help.

Besides, wasn’t that rule added far too late after the most economically significant air drops were already completed.

For such an important issue, where is the comprehensive document which explains all the filtering methods employed in sufficient, holistic detail and the timing that each was employed and the complete accounting of air drops and dates. We should not have to go searching in a very long project thread to try to dig out the details which are buried in posts.

Also we know for a fact they did not filter out Iconomi’s ill gotten, illegal security issued ICO hoard, because Iconomi wrote a Medium blog post about how they got 9.766% of the initial Byteball money supply.

“if you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”

(but really we’re just-us working together to build a better world, not scamming)

I guess what irritates me is pretending something is more egalitarian than it really is. I have no problem with admitting that egalitarianism is impossible, so why not be transparent about it. Why make these SJW-like lies to ourselves pretending what isn’t.

I suggest you read it again. The filtering is to prevent customers from linking the exchange addresses, not the exchange itself from linking it. If you see, linking by signature is still allowed.

Exchanges, ICONOMI and other ICOs own the private keys for these addresses, which makes them, from a protocol perspective, owners of these coins.
 
I'm not saying it's perfect, but I also don't see these exchanges linking their cold storages by signature. Even if they are there, again, from a protocol perspective, we can not blame them. In crypto, that's what we're signing for.