1. Blast’s stated objectives for Gold:
-
Rewarding ecosystem growth: Blast Gold was intended to incentivize projects that contributed to the growth and adoption of the Blast ecosystem.
-
Encouraging innovative dApp development: The incentive program aimed to support projects that utilized Blast’s unique features, like native yield, gas fee sharing, and the Points API, driving innovation and value creation.
-
Fueling long-term growth: Gold was meant to be a catalyst for sustainable growth, not just a short-term airdrop.
2. Gold Distribution Process:
-
Manual allocation: Unlike Blast Points, which were distributed automatically, Gold was allocated manually by the core contributors.
-
Meritocratic system: The core team aimed to reward projects based on objective and subjective factors, including traction, TVL, integration with Blast features, and alignment with the overall ecosystem goals.
-
Gold as incentive firepower: The Blast team encouraged projects to use Gold as incentives for their own user growth and engagement, aligning with Blast’s long-term vision.
3. Perceived fairness:
-
Subjective interpretation: The perception of fairness varied among the community. Some users felt that the distribution was based on favoritism or limited criteria, while others appreciated the emphasis on ecosystem growth and innovation.
-
Limited transparency: The manual allocation process lacked complete transparency, making it difficult for users to fully understand the reasoning behind the decisions. This lack of transparency contributed to some criticisms of the program’s fairness.
-
Small airdrop: The overall size of the Blast airdrop, including the Gold allocation, was perceived as small by some users, leading to frustration and a feeling of unfairness.
Possible Improvements for future distributions:
-
Increased transparency: Providing more detailed information about the criteria and rationale behind the Gold allocation decisions would enhance transparency and trust.
-
Community involvement: Allowing the community to vote on or provide input on the selection criteria for Gold recipients could increase the perceived fairness of the process.
-
Automating distribution: Exploring automated distribution mechanisms, potentially based on on-chain metrics, could increase transparency and reduce the potential for bias.
-
Larger airdrop allocation: Considering a larger overall airdrop allocation for future seasons could address concerns about the perceived small size of the initial distribution.
Ultimately, the fairness of the Blast Gold incentives is a complex issue with no easy answers. The Blast team’s intentions were likely well-meaning, focusing on supporting long-term ecosystem growth. However, a lack of transparency and the perceived small airdrop allocation led to some criticisms and a sense of unfairness within the community.