I think the wallet that creates the pool first should receive a higher proportion of airdrops, because those who create the pool and add LP for the first time need to invest more SOL. These users are the truly loyal ones.
people using before jan 2025 also pays protocal fee
and late users immediately sell is just a joke
people who joined recently started farming points expecting after Previous LP plan ended they can get TGE and sell and after Trump alunch it was easy to farm becasue so much liquidity added to solana exosystems and i still feel as per previous percent jan-feb-march should get only 3% not 5%
2 Likes
Additionally, it seems like you’re overlooking the fact that a small group of people will end up controlling 8% of the supply, which is a significant amount. This small group has already benefited from the early stages of the project, but the disproportionate share of tokens doesn’t seem fair to the larger group of more active users who joined later and have contributed just as much, if not more, in terms of risk and support. This is a fundamental issue with the current distribution system that needs to be addressed.
1 Like
If you believe I am doing something wrong or misleading, I would appreciate it if you could provide any evidence to support your claims. Until then, I’m just here to contribute and participate fairly.
By the way, here’s my wallet address for reference: tuzuJBujkDkC43a2DKmBcm6Ha7ooBLGL8N8EiBJQ8xY. Feel free to check for yourself.
Let’s keep things transparent and focused on the facts.
What is small group
120k people for a year is never small and with out there contribution
Bigger project would have not launched on meteora
And 120k people in a year are pure organic
Not like people who joined after $Trump launch
Already recent number clearly shows
Active users reduced 50 percent after Feb
And product is not built in 3 months
It has been more than year and it’s community of people worked with founders increased users from 10k to 120k in a year
Last 3 months it was just 2x members added and in terms active users it lesser than dec 2024 now
I hope team be with community who believed in proposal of 1 percent - 1 month
And reduce supply of 2025 and reward long term users
Like 6+ months
2 Likes
Every protocol respect their early users cuz without them the protocol wouldn’t even exist today.
You didn’t join Meteora at the early stage before cuz it wasn’t popular enough, you didn’t know about it, you just came to reap what the OG and early users sew. They made it popular, not you.
They made Meteora popular so many tokens could launch here, not because you joined 2 months ago. You’re the one who didn’t contribute long-term.
All I see is an opportunist who came 2 months ago when the protocol was trending trying to get as much as value possible and then leave as fast as he came. You and all sybils farmors are the same.
4 Likes
Fair = linear, each contribute at its size and we avoid dilution from sybils farmors.
Additionally, 3% from launchpad and 2% fixed allocation for regular use of the platform.
I think that’s pretty good for a smoll user. I’m happy with that.
OG deserves it cuz OG. The early stages are always risky.. easier to join a successful company than a startup.
Whales deserve cuz they take risk putting lot of money on one protocol that may be hacked. Shrimps would lose 100-1k$ but the whales would lose… 6,7 digits in one hack, that’s very risky.
As a shrimp I don’t mind putting 500$ on many protocols. But imagining putting like 6 digits on one single protocol.. with all those hacked that happened in 2024… and for the whole year… meh.
I’m for meritocracy. One deserves its due. Fairness. This is PPP.
3 Likes
Just because you joined earlier doesn’t mean you’re automatically more valuable, especially when new users are paying 5% in fees to support Meteora.
It’s like someone joining a project later but contributing more by bringing value, while early participants may not have added as much. Timing isn’t everything—what matters is the contribution to the project’s growth and liquidity.
2 Likes
1st thing stop saying 5% percent protocol fee paid by new users
everyone using meteora pays it and since you are not part of meteora for years
you will never understand time community working with team and to bring changes and bring more people and from that team has created a proposal after communicating with community which was 1 month -1 percent
growth of product started after that since every person treated equally as per points you get and more users started and meteora had 10x growth of users and TVL in a year
now after completion of LP plan team actually rewarding new users extra percent 1.63 percent for 1 month
that is not fair for people who worked to bring new users and in the hope of rewarding people equally
time and growth is more important for any product than fee they generated for few months
bitcoin in 2015 and bitcoin in 2025
shows value of time and being support from early
product dont build to run for just 3-4 months they build for long term
people who build for long term they always be with users and stick with them for long run
4 Likes
Until TGE, the shares allocated to 2025 were continuously diluted, and now some whales are earning fees by building their own pools, which is not user-friendly for 2025.
2 Likes
Bro joined when trump launched, saw 100 topics about how MET will be the biggest airdrop in 2025 just to profit from that and claiming he should earn the same as people who were here since the beginning supporting the project.
Think twice before writing such poor statement.
3 Likes
You’re right. Jupiter is number one now solely because of the community, and the community loves Jupiter solely because Jupiter thinks of its community. There’s actually lobbying going on right now for a favorable Goose DAO distribution proposal, they’ll take probably a quarter of all airdrop. Goose DAO are cool guys, but FUD will kill Meteora. Saying that points earned in the summer of 2024 are more important than points earned now is nonsense. It’s harder to earn points now, but the community is with Meteora during this tough time. Lots of people tried trading for meteora during the bootcamp to get a role, however most failed to get it, lost money and left. And a smaller portion of people were able to and continued to supply liquidity for Meteora. So the right thing to do would be to reward everyone: users who started their journey in 2025, cNFT holders, people with large deposits, and early users. There just needs to be an adequate ceiling on linear distribution and an adequate threshold for the base award.
2 Likes
Jupiter airdrop = heaven for sybils.
The tier system favors sybils over real users.
There should be a ceiling for whales, but the distribution should be mostly linear—or a brutal cut-off if the team insists on using tiers.
A real user should have at least $1K in fees (with many different tokens, not 1 or 2 tokens).
There are many farmers with hundreds of wallets ($10- $1k in fees) just in case there will be thressold for base rewards.
2024/2025 wallets
3 Likes
What do you think of jupiter community and what do you think of community scroll (fully linear distribution)? It’s clear that you don’t care what happens to the project after airdrop, but the team should retain loyalty and encourage participation in the next activities.
2 Likes
Hyperliquid was based on point distribution. The more points the more reward, and it was successful because there was no VC to take all the money away like SCROLL did with Binance and all…
Meteora doesn’t have VC backing like SCROLL did. So we’re very safe, it won’t be a SCROLL 2.0, don’t worry about that. As long as the FDV remains high, we’re fine.
Linear isn’t an issue if you kick the sybils out, and grant as said a fixed allocation on top of the linear (hybrid airdrop)
2 Likes
Why are you comparing such extreme cases? Scroll was an airdrop designed for insiders and VCs—it has zero real value, generates no revenue, and barely anyone uses it.
On the other hand, Hyperliquid and Ethena had linear airdrops, with Ethena also capping whale allocations.
Meteora isn’t another L1/L2 ghost chain; it’s a functioning dApp that generates significant revenue.
If the team can come up with strong tokenomics and utilize Meteora’s revenues for buybacks - similar to what Hyperliquid does (everyone wins).
The only ones leaving Meteora post-TGE are sybils running hundreds of wallets.
I’ve been using Meteora for over a year, providing liquidity for 200+ pairs, and I plan to continue even after TGE.
Right now, there are people with hundreds, if not thousands, of wallets (using scripts) who earned between $10 and $1,000 in fees, and they’re the ones pushing for a tiered airdrop.
On top of that, some whales are stacking multiple wallets with over $100K in earned fees.
Their goal is simple—maximize allocation and dump as soon as possible.
The reality is that these sybils have no long-term interest in Meteora; they’re just here for the exit liquidity.
A tiered structure only benefits them while hurting actual users who have been engaged with the platform long-term.
2 Likes
I didn’t say I was against linear distribution. I said there is a great example of Jupiter, which still has the strongest community. Jupiter token wants to buy users because Jupiter thinks about its community. And in Meteore now 50% of airdrop will simply go to a couple dozen people. And at the last discussion Goose DAO lobbied for this, because they are the people who will get 50% of the airdrop. I’m in favor of a fixed and linear distribution. I agree with you that we need to remove sibyls and it can be done in an elementary way. Softs don’t use UI touches and regular sibbils come in 1-2 pools, so we need to put a threshold of at least 5 pools + number of days/weeks/months. Also many people correctly argue that we should reward cNFT owners, because to get it you need Twitter,discord,gmail and a transaction to hold for an hour, and this could be done by users who actually learned how to use Meteora and no software will do it. In general, it’s not hard to remove siblings, but everyone should be rewarded, because only then Meteora won’t have to worry about its token and community support like Jupiter doesn’t.
4 Likes
Oh, you’re so right. I was only able to get the role 3 times:D But I did learn how to trade on Meteora.
Gmet
Great to see such strong engagement around the $MET distribution. It’s fascinating to watch different perspectives clash and complement each other to hopefully deliver the fairest airdrop possible.
Below is my contribution to the discussion, in the hopes it helps move the needle.
Initial Plan vs Current Reality
As I understand it, Meteora originally committed to allocating 10% of the total supply to reward users of the protocol, with a TGE initially planned for 2024.
Since the TGE has yet to occur, the team has decided to increase the community airdrop allocation by 50%, bringing it to 15% of the total supply. I believe this is a fair and transparent adjustment, and I won’t challenge this revised allocation.
2024 vs 2025
I don’t believe it’s necessary to split the airdrop between 2024 and 2025 activity. While the idea may sound fair in principle, in practice it adds complexity without significant added value.
What matters most is recognizing the crucial role early adopters play in the success of any dApp — and Meteora is no exception.
Therefore, rather than splitting the airdrop by year, I propose introducing an “Early Adopter Multiplier” to boost rewards for those who supported the protocol in its early days.
I’m not tied to a specific value, but as an example, a 50% multiplier could be applied to eligible wallets.
Loyalty & Consistency
Rewarding user consistency makes sense. However, we must recognize the operational realities of the ecosystem: users often rotate wallets for precautionary reasons (key compromise, hygiene practices, etc.).
To strike a balance, I propose introducing a lighter “Consistency Multiplier” — for example, +25% — applied to wallets who can demonstrate sustained participation (number of weeks or months to be defined).
Linear vs Tiered Distribution
I’ve never seen a linear airdrop result in a fair outcome. I strongly recommend a tiered approach, as successfully implemented twice by Jupiter. This model has proven to be both effective and well-received by the community.
Here is a draft tiering model (to be challenged and refined via simulation, ideally benchmarked against Jupiter’s tiers):
- Tier 1: Top 1% of wallets
- Tier 2: Top 5%
- Tier 3: Top 10%
- Tier 4: Top 25%
- Tier 5: Top 50%
- Tier 6: Top 75%
- Tier 7: Minimum contribution threshold (e.g., $100 in fees)
Off-Chain Contributions
Very few voices seem to advocate for rewarding off-chain contributions — a significant oversight, in my opinion.
Meteora’s success owes much to hundreds of contributors who supported growth, community building, and user adoption in non-capital ways. These efforts, while sometimes invisible, are vital and deserve recognition.
Examples include:
- Moderating the Discord and managing events (Twitter Spaces, AMAs)
- Producing onboarding materials, guides, and tutorials
- Writing educational threads to drive LP adoption
- Reporting bugs, sharing feedback, suggesting features
- Building third-party tools to support strategy execution (automation, analytics, P&L tracking)
- Identifying bad actors and supporting blacklist refinement
A portion of the airdrop should be allocated to this contributor base — not based on capital, but on value-added contribution.
Sanctum’s “earnestness” allocation is an interesting precedent. While the weight was arguably too high, the principle is valid and worth adapting.
I suggest assigning 2% of the total airdrop to this category. This would require a human-curated process, with a working group tasked with vetting contributions and assigning value tiers accordingly.
Summary — Proposed Airdrop Framework
13% — Usage-Based Distribution
- Export full user points history (monthly)
- Apply blacklist for Sybil/bad actors
- Assign base allocation by usage tier
- Apply Early Adopter Multiplier (e.g., +50%)
- Apply Consistency Multiplier (e.g., +25%)
2% — Off-Chain Contribution Pool
- Define contribution categories and weights
- Build initial list via internal working group
- Publish list with contributor names, contributions, and assigned tier
- Open contribution form for self-declared input
- Finalize list and assign airdrop allocation based on tiers
Objectives Met
With this approach, we could:
- Ensure fair distribution to all genuine LPs, while limiting dilution from whales and Sybil wallets
- Reward long-term or consistent users proportionally, through usage-based multipliers
- Recognize and compensate key off-chain contributors without tying it to capital deployment
Thanks for reading
Happy to dive deeper into the details — whether it’s modeling the tier system, refining multipliers, or structuring the contributor reward logic. Looking forward to feedback.
9 Likes
how can you say you’ve never seen a linear system succeed?
Just look at Hyperliquid, they recently ran a linear airdrop for early users, and it was a clear success.
And while the idea of Off-Chain Contributions sounds good in theory, it could become problematic in practice.
How do you define the criteria for this? It could be too subjective, and that opens the door to unfair decisions or biased selection.
In the end, a small group of people could end up receiving a disproportionate amount of rewards and 2% is way too much for such a limited group.