- Buy Crypto
- Markets
- Futures
- Spot
- Copy Trade
Earn- More
Harsh Reality: Unpacking the Three Major Contradictions of the Current Airdrop Market
Original Article Title: "Harsh Reality: The Three Major Contradictions of the Current Airdrop Market"
Original Article Author: 0x Director, Crypto KOL
2024 Airdrop Data Spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10l-dsjtrFiFAPBGmUNqwVZSviJ4O0lRypEd4Oc9tCZU/edit?gid=0#gid=0
Foreword
The current airdrop market has entered a naked scramble for interests. While project teams tacitly allow data manipulation to attract funding, they also engage in large-scale cleansing before the airdrop; meanwhile, airdrop hunters are desperately playing in the dilemma of "you may not get anything if you hunt, but you'll definitely get nothing if you don't." This game without a referee has exposed the most acute contradiction in the airdrop market—the rift between data bubble and real value, and the conflict between short-term gains and long-term ecosystem.
The Director used airdrop data from 100 projects in 2024 to reveal the latest trends and dark rules of airdrops—who is harvesting? Who is being harvested?
1. Project Team Goal Conflict
Core Contradiction: Data Growth Demand (Creating a Bubble) vs. Controlling Token Outflow (Eliminating the Bubble)
"We are well aware that over 80% of the addresses are from studios, but we have to rely on them for ecosystem bootstrapping."
—CTO of a certain L2 protocol
Project teams face a dilemma before TGE:
· Left Hand Creating a Bubble: Allowing studios to batch inflate metrics to create on-chain data prosperity (TVL/trading volume/user count) to attract funding;
· Right Hand Bursting the Bubble: Conducting address filtering before the airdrop, performing large-scale cleansing;
1. Airdrop Type Data Analysis
The Director compiled airdrop rules for 100 projects in 2024 and outlined the percentage of various types of airdrops:
Based on project data analysis, Interaction, NFT Holding, and Points Airdrops constitute the current market's three mainstream mechanisms.
· Interactive Airdrop: The main airdrop method, mainly focused on testnets and mainnets, where projects use a series of tasks, such as Odyssey events, to increase on-chain interaction data and TVL to attract funding. However, excessive interaction can lead to address washing by the project team. For example, 803,000 addresses on LayerZero were identified as witches, 40% of addresses on Linea were identified as witches, and high-frequency interactive users on StarkNet were flagged as bots;
· NFT Holding Airdrop: Secondly, NFTs, OAT, etc., are often used as airdrop vouchers, with most of them requiring continuous tasks to be performed to obtain them, or in the form of whitelisting requiring spending funds to mint. These types of NFTs are usually tradable on-chain, which also poses potential insider trading risks, is difficult to identify, and has concentrated chip control (e.g., FUEL and Berachain's NFTs, with unreasonable airdrop distribution ratios);
· Points-based Airdrop: Currently the mainstream method, different from tokens, points belong to centralized data, are susceptible to tampering, and lack transparency. They can be infinitely inflated and have rules that can be arbitrarily adjusted, casting doubt on the fairness of the airdrop. For example, ME (points of witch addresses are directly reset, and the exchange rate is also different), and Linea (LXP is an SBT, which is another form of points, and holders may ultimately not receive the airdrop). Points-based airdrops also face serious suspicions of insider trading (e.g., EigenLayer's snapshot incident, Blast's points inflation, and IO's controversies over "point shrinkage and point theft," all have possible suspicions of insider trading);
Other types of airdrops such as staking, developer rewards, voting, etc., are also different ways for projects to select airdrop recipients. However, the lack of transparency in the rules, insider trading, and privileged information cast doubt on the fairness of airdrops.
2. Market Games and Project Strategy Choices
The current market is a zero-sum game, with a limited cake. It is impossible to satisfy oneself, VCs, users, and exchanges at the same time. Therefore, project teams must engage in dynamic games to allocate benefits and extract value. Faced with the contradiction of airdrop incentives, project teams usually adopt two typical strategies:
· Sunshine Type: Suitable for small projects or projects with generous rewards, such as HYPT, where there is virtually no screening, and every address is rewarded. These projects are generally blind airdrops with no clear airdrop rules, making it impossible to determine the odds and difficult to attract a large number of studios;
· Strict Screening Type: Suitable for large projects, usually filtering users based on points, interaction frequency, rankings, witch checks, etc., using a last-place elimination system. For example, SCR (only addresses with 200 points or more qualify for the airdrop), Runes (screening through holding inscriptions and NFTs), ZKSync and StarkNet (multi-condition screening), LayerZero (witch reporting system). Although these strategies improve the precision of reward distribution, they also increase participation uncertainty, putting rug pullers in a passive position in the rules game;
2. Participant's Inner Conflict
Core Conflict: To Rug Pull or Not to Rug Pull
Participants also face a dilemma:
· To Rug Pull or Not to Rug Pull If they completely abstain from participating in the project, they will definitely miss out on airdrop rewards. To strive for potential gains, many users have to actively engage in various tasks and activities, investing a significant amount of time and resources, thereby further intensifying market saturation and participant anxiety;
· Even If They Rug Pull, It's Not Guaranteed to Succeed Even with significant investment, there is no guarantee of receiving the rewards. User input does not necessarily correlate with output, as project teams use various means to filter addresses. The complex screening mechanisms lead many participants to lose their airdrop eligibility due to strategic errors or being misjudged as negative actors.
Excessive Competition and Investment Risks
In their quest for limited rewards, users are forced to "rug pull" a large amount of data and activity. However, at the same time, the intricate and opaque rules and strict screening criteria make it difficult for participants to predict their actual returns;
By 2024, out of 100 projects, 32 will explicitly witch-hunt. The screening criteria of most project teams are not disclosed publicly, and the audit process is a black-box operation, entirely controlled by the project teams. Users are like lambs to the slaughter, arbitrarily judged. The following chart analyzes the types of negative actors:
The core criteria for witch-hunting by project teams include:
· Homogeneous Interactions: A large number of identical operation patterns are the main reasons for being identified as negative actors;
· Address Aggregation Behavior: Multiple addresses executing similar operations at the same time and in the same environment are easily identifiable and liquidated;
· IP, Device, Front-end Interaction: More and more project teams analyze user behavior through front-end data, making simple strategies like changing IP addresses or devices ineffective;
To survive in this airdrop game, relying solely on funds and luck is far from enough. It also requires more sophisticated interaction strategies, stronger technical support, higher anti-detection capabilities, and continuous investment and perseverance.
3. Project Team's Conflict with Rug Pullers
The Core Contradiction: A Loss for One is a Loss for All VS A Win for One is a Win for All
In the airdrop incentive game, a "symbiotic" relationship has been formed between the project team and the airdrop hunters, where their fates are closely intertwined:
· Mutual Prosperity: When both parties achieve a relatively balanced incentive mechanism, it can attract a sufficient amount of active data while ensuring ecosystem quality. Both the project team and users can benefit from it;
· Mutual Loss: If either party becomes unbalanced, whether it is due to the project team's improper airdrop strategy or the airdrop hunters excessively gaming the system, it will ultimately have a negative impact on the entire ecosystem, and both parties will find it difficult to thrive independently.
Dynamic Game:
· When participating in airdrop activities, project teams usually set certain thresholds. For example, Linea's Proof of Humanity (POH) certification or IP whitelist thresholds. When the project team sets a loose participation threshold, airdrop hunters can participate in large numbers, leading to a sudden surge in data in the short term. However, once this bubble effect is cleaned up by strict filtering mechanisms, the entire ecosystem may face the dilemma of severe disconnection between data and actual user activity. For example, after LayerZero announced the completion of the snapshot, the number of active on-chain addresses plummeted steeply;
· Conversely, when designing the rules, project teams raise the participation threshold to ensure that only truly active users contributing real value can receive rewards. Although such a high threshold prevents a sudden surge in the number of participants, it leads to a healthy and stable growth of active on-chain addresses, avoiding the creation of a data bubble.
The essence of an airdrop is the dynamic game of interests between the project team and users. For airdrop hunters, to consistently receive rewards, they must strategize meticulously, improve interaction quality, and even build long-term value; for the project team, they should not deliberately pursue funding, aim for a large user base, or focus on short-term prosperity. Instead, their core task should be how to build a long-term sustainable ecosystem and truly provide value support.
You may also like
$COIN Joins S&P 500, but Coinbase Isn't Celebrating
On May 13, S&P Dow Jones Indices announced that Coinbase would officially replace Discover Financial Services in the S&P 500 on May 19. While other companies like Block and MicroStrategy, closely tied to Bitcoin, were already part of the S&P 500, Coinbase became the first cryptocurrency exchange whose primary business is in the index. This also signifies that cryptocurrency is gradually moving from the fringes to the mainstream in the U.S.
On the day of the announcement, Coinbase's stock price surged by 23%, surpassing the $250 mark. However, just 3 days later, Coinbase was hit by two consecutive events: a hack where employees were bribed to steal customer data and a demand for a $20 million ransom, and an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) into the authenticity of its claim of having over 100 million "verified users" in its securities filings and marketing materials. These two events acted as mini-bombs, and at the time of writing, Coinbase's stock had already dropped by over 7.3%.
Coincidentally, Discover Financial Services, being replaced by Coinbase, can also be considered the "Coinbase" of the previous payment era. Discover is a U.S.-based digital banking and payment services company headquartered in Illinois, founded in 1960. Its payment network, Discover Network, is the fourth largest payment network apart from Visa, Mastercard, and American Express.
In April, after the approval of the acquisition of Discover by the sixth-largest U.S. bank, Capital One, this well-established digital banking company of over 60 years smoothly handed over its S&P 500 "seat" to this emerging cryptocurrency "bank." This unexpected coincidence also portrayed the handover between the new and old eras in Coinbase's entry into the S&P 500, resembling a relay race scene. However, this relay baton also brought Coinbase's accumulated "external troubles and internal strife" to a tipping point.
Over the past decade, cryptocurrency exchanges have been the most stable "profit machines." They play a role in providing liquidity to the entire industry and rely on trading fees to sustain their operations. However, with the comprehensive rollout of ETF products in the U.S. market, this profit model is facing unprecedented challenges. As the leader in the "American stack," with over 80% of its business coming from the U.S., Coinbase is most affected by this.
Starting from the approval of Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs, traditional financial capital has significantly onboarded users and funds that originally belonged to exchanges in a more cost-effective, compliant, and transparent manner. The transaction fee revenue of cryptocurrency exchanges has started to decline, and this trend may further intensify in the coming months.
According to Coinbase's 2024 Q4 financial report, the platform's total trading revenue was $417 million, a 45% year-on-year decrease. The contribution of BTC and ETH's trading revenue dropped from 65% in the same period last year to less than 50%.
This decline is not a result of a decrease in market enthusiasm. In fact, since the approval of the Bitcoin ETF in January 2024, the inflow of BTC into the U.S. market has continued to reach new highs, with asset management giants like BlackRock and Fidelity rapidly expanding their management scale. Data shows that BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin ETF (IBIT) alone has surpassed $17 billion in assets under management. As of mid-May 2025, the cumulative net inflow of 11 major institutional Bitcoin spot ETFs on the market has exceeded $41.5 billion, with a total net asset value of $1214.69 billion, accounting for approximately 5.91% of the total Bitcoin market capitalization.
Institutional investors and some retail investors are shifting towards ETF products, partly due to compliance and tax considerations. On one hand, ETFs have much lower trading costs compared to cryptocurrency exchanges. While Coinbase's spot trading fee rate varies annually in a tiered manner but averages around 1.49%, for example, the management fee for IBIT ETF is only 0.25%, and the majority of ETF institution fees fluctuate around 0.15% to 0.25%.
In other words, the more rational users are, the more likely they are to move from exchanges to ETF products, especially for investors aiming for long-term holdings.
According to multiple sources, several institutions, including VanEck and Grayscale, have submitted applications to the SEC for a Solana (SOL) ETF, with some institutions also planning to submit an XRP ETF proposal. Once approved, this may trigger a new round of fund migration. According to a report submitted by Coinbase to the SEC, as of April, the platform's trading revenue from XRP and Solana accounted for 18% and 10%, nearly one-third of the platform's fee revenue.
However, the Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs passed in 2024 also reduced the fees for these two tokens on Coinbase from 30% and 15% to 26% and 10%, respectively. If the SOL and XRP ETFs are approved, it will further undermine the core fee revenue of exchanges like Coinbase.
The expansion of ETF products is gradually weakening the financial intermediary status of cryptocurrency exchanges. From their original roles as matchmakers and clearers to now gradually becoming mere "on-ramps and off-ramps" for funds, exchanges are seeing their marginal value squeezed by ETFs.
On May 12, 2025, SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins gave a keynote speech at the Tokenization and Cryptocurrency Working Group roundtable. The theme of his speech revolved around "It is a new day at the SEC," where he indicated that the SEC would not approach enforcement and regulation the same way as before but would instead pave the way for cryptocurrency assets in the U.S. market.
With signs of cryptocurrency compliance such as the SEC's "NEW DAY" declaration, an increasing number of traditional brokerages are attempting to enter the cryptocurrency industry. One of the most representative cases is the well-known U.S. brokerage Robinhood, which began expanding its crypto business in 2018. By the time of its IPO in 2021, Robinhood's crypto business revenue accounted for over 50% of the company, with a significant boost from the Dogecoin "moonshot" promoted by Musk.
In Q1 2025 earnings report, Robinhood showcased strong growth, especially in revenue from cryptocurrency and options trading. Fueled by Trump's Memecoin, cryptocurrency-related revenue reached $250 million, nearly doubling year-over-year. Consequently, Robinhood Gold subscription users reached 3.5 million, a 90% increase from the previous year, with the rapid growth of Robinhood Gold providing the company with a stable source of income.
Meanwhile, RobinHood is actively pursuing acquisitions in the cryptocurrency space. In 2024, it announced a $2 billion acquisition of the long-standing European cryptocurrency exchange Bitstamp. Additionally, Canada's largest cryptocurrency CEX, WonderFi, which recently went public on the Toronto Stock Exchange, also announced its integration with RobinHood Crypto. After obtaining virtual asset licenses in the UK, Canada, Singapore, and other markets, RobinHood has taken a proactive approach in the compliant cryptocurrency trading market.
Furthermore, an increasing number of brokerage firms are exploring the same path. Futu Securities, Tiger Brokers, and others are also dipping their toes into cryptocurrency trading, with some having applied for or obtained the VA license from the Hong Kong SFC. Although their user bases are currently small, traditional brokerages have a natural advantage in user trust, regulatory licenses, and low fee structures. This could pose a threat to native cryptocurrency platforms in the future.
In April 2025, security researchers discovered that some Coinbase user data was leaked on the dark web. While the platform initially responded by attributing it to a "technical misinformation," it still raised concerns among users regarding its security and privacy protection. Just two days before Dow Jones Indexes announced Coinbase's addition to the S&P 500 Index, on May 11, 2025, Coinbase received an email from an unknown threat actor claiming to have obtained customer account information and internal documents, demanding a $20 million ransom to keep the data private. Subsequent investigations confirmed the data breach.
Cybercriminals obtained the data by bribing overseas customer service agents and support staff, mainly in "non-U.S. regions such as India." These agents abused their access to Coinbase's internal customer support system and stole customer data. As early as February this year, blockchain detective ZachXBT revealed on X platform that between December 2024 and January 2025, Coinbase users lost over $65 million to social engineering scams, with the actual amount potentially higher.
Among the victims was a well-known figure, 67-year-old Ed Suman, an established artist in the art world for nearly two decades, having been involved in the creation of artworks such as Jeff Koons' "Balloon Dog" sculpture. Earlier this year, he fell victim to an impersonation scam involving fake Coinbase customer support, resulting in a loss of over $2 million in cryptocurrency. ZachXBT critiqued Coinbase for its inadequate handling of such scams, noting that other major exchanges have not faced similar issues and recommending Coinbase to enhance its security measures.
Amidst a series of ongoing social engineering incidents, although there has not been any impact on user assets at the technical level so far, it has raised concerns among many retail and institutional investors. Especially institutions holding massive assets on Coinbase. Just considering the U.S. BTC ETF institutions, as of mid-May 2025, they collectively hold nearly 840,000 BTC, and 75% of these are custodied by Coinbase. If we price BTC at $100,000, this amount reaches a staggering $63 billion, which is equivalent to the nominal GDP of two Iceland in the year 2024.
In addition, Coinbase Custody also serves over 300 institutional clients, including hedge funds, family offices, pension funds, and endowments. As of the Q1 2025 financial report, Coinbase's total assets under management (including institutional and retail clients) reached $404 billion. The specific amount of institutional custodied assets was not explicitly disclosed in the latest report, but it should still be over 50% based on the Q4 2024 report.
Once this security barrier is breached, not only could the rate of user attrition far exceed expectations, but more importantly, institutional trust in it would undermine the foundation of its business. Therefore, after a hacking event, Coinbase's stock price plummeted significantly.
Facing a decline in spot trading fee revenue, Coinbase is also accelerating its transformation, attempting to find growth opportunities in derivatives and emerging assets. Coinbase acquired a stake in the options platform Deribit at the end of 2024 and announced the official launch of perpetual contract products in 2025. This acquisition fills in Coinbase's gap in options trading and its relatively small global market share.
Deribit has a strong presence in non-U.S. markets, especially in Asia and Europe. The acquisition has enabled Coinbase to gain a dominant position in bitcoin and ethereum options trading on Deribit, accounting for approximately 80% of the global options trading volume, with daily trading volume remaining above $2 billion.
Meanwhile, 80-90% of Deribit's customer base consists of institutional investors, with their professionalism and liquidity in the Bitcoin and Ethereum options market highly favored by institutions. Coinbase's compliance advantage, coupled with its already robust institutional ecosystem, makes it even more suitable. By using institutions as an entry point, it can face the squeeze from giants like Binance and OKX in the derivatives market.
Facing a similar dilemma is Kraken, which is attempting to replicate Binance Futures' model in non-U.S. markets. Since the derivatives market relies more on professional users, fee rates are relatively higher and stickiness is stronger, making it a significant source of revenue for exchanges. In the first half of 2025, Kraken completed the acquisition of TradeStation Crypto and a futures exchange, aiming to build a complete derivatives trading ecosystem to hedge the risk of declining spot transaction fee income.
With the surge of Memecoin in 2024, Binance, OKX, and various CEX platforms began massively listing small-market-cap, highly volatile tokens to activate active trading users. Due to the wealth effect and trading activity of Memecoins, Coinbase was also forced to join the battle, successively listing popular tokens from the Solana ecosystem such as BOOK OF MEME and Dogwifhat. Although these coins are controversial, they are frequently traded, with fee rates several times higher than mainstream coins, serving as a "blood-boosting" method for spot trading.
However, due to its status as a publicly traded company, this practice is a riskier endeavor for Coinbase. Even in the current crypto-friendly environment, the SEC is still investigating whether tokens like SOL, ADA, and SAND constitute securities.
In addition to the forced transformation strategies carried out by the aforementioned CEXs, they are also starting to lay out RWAs and the most talked-about stablecoin payment fields, such as the PYUSD launched through a collaboration between Coinbase and Paypal, Coinbase's support for the Euro stablecoin EURC by Circle that complies with EU MiCA regulatory requirements, or the USD1 launched through a collaboration between Binance and WIFL. In the increasingly crowded trading field, many CEXs have shifted their focus from just the trading market to the application field.
The golden age of transaction fees has quietly ended, and the second half of the crypto exchange platform game has silently begun.
Binance Sparks "Delist Concept": Can CEX Still Produce the Next ALPACA?
On April 24, Binance announced that it would delist four tokens, including Alpaca Finance ($ALPACA), on May 2, and cease trading of these pairs' perpetual futures contracts at 00:00 on May 1, 2025, Beijing time. Fast forward to the last day of perpetual futures trading delisting, ALPACA surged on the liquidation heat map. Over the past 24 hours, a total of $52.21 million evaporated in ALPACA's contract trading, exceeding the sum of the token's liquidation volume over the past two years.
Historically, when a token is listed on Binance, many traders would buy the news instantly ("Buy the News"). As the Binance listing effect gradually waned, traders found another path, which is to short sell the tokens set to be delisted from Binance ("Sell the News"). This strategy often has a very high success rate. However, as traders followed this path, they encountered the Alpaca on their short-selling journey.
Every thrilling market manipulation game requires careful preparation. Before Binance's official announcement, on April 10, $ALPACA was ranked 7th in the preliminary list of the second batch of "Vote for Delisting" on Binance, causing its price to plummet almost by half. However, in the five days leading up to Binance's official announcement, from April 19 to April 23, trading volume suddenly surged.
The story traces back to the start of Binance's second round of "Vote for Delisting," where ALPACA was included in the delisting candidates list, ranked 7th among 17 projects. After the completion of Binance's delisting vote count, $ALPACA was included in the projects to be delisted. The market did not react significantly, price fluctuations were not substantial, but trading volumes expanded abnormally, suggesting the entry of "manipulative funds" into the community.
On April 24, Binance officially announced the delisting of the $ALPACA spot trading pair on May 2 and the settlement of the futures contracts on April 30. Following the announcement, the spot price of $ALPACA dropped from $0.0329 to $0.029, with a market cap of only about $5 million. However, what followed were two price "rollercoaster" moments; within an hour, the price surged from $0.029 to $0.0857, an increase of about 195%, only to rapidly drop back to $0.04 within 3 hours. Shorts were caught off guard, and the open interest of contracts surged rapidly, initiating the "long and short grinder" mode.
On April 25, Alpaca Finance officially announced that the trading volume in the past 24 hours had exceeded 1 billion tokens. The liquidity provider had suggested a "minting for stability" to be returned to the treasury after a decrease in trading volume. However, as public opinion began to ferment, opposition filled the community. Alpaca Finance deleted the previous tweet and posted a new one at 9 p.m. on the same night, announcing the cancellation of the minting due to community opposition.
On April 26, Binance amended the contract funding rate rules, shortening the maximum rate cap settlement period to hourly and setting it at up to ±2%. Some high-leverage accounts continued to hold short positions against the high rate and were liquidated. Millions of dollars disappeared within a few hours, with $13 million in short positions vanishing on a token with a market cap of less than $30 million.
With the establishment of this short-selling trend, the price skyrocketed nearly 12 times from a low of $0.029 to $0.3477 within 3 days. The contract's open interest surged significantly, especially with a notable increase in short positions, resembling a microcosm of the Wall Street battle of GME's retail investors. However, this time, the retail investors' opponents could continue to mint additional chips.
From April 26 to April 29, these days were relatively calm, with the price fluctuating around $0.2 to $0.34. On April 29, Binance announced another increase in the rate cap to ±4%. Theoretically, such a high rate would severely impact short positions. If the rate remains at -4%, the bears will face a 96% "cost of ruin" after holding a short position for 24 hours. However, miraculously, the price plummeted from $0.27 to $0.067.
On April 30, with the contract delisting and liquidation scheduled in the final 24 hours, the price continued to experience intense fluctuations. ALPACA's attention peaked, with its highest price reaching $1.2 at one point. From a week before the delisting announcement to the eve of the contract delisting, ALPACA's price surged 40 times, creating an independent market for the token delisted by Binance. The total liquidation volume across the network also reached $50 million, with $42 million in "bearish fuel" beneath the price surge.
After the first surge of ALPACA, Heyi, the co-founder of Binance, replied to a netizen asking, "Can the teacher who buys the shell guarantee breakeven?" This has also triggered endless speculation among community members.
KOL Tunbtc believes that Heyi's reply to this matter was the starting point of ALPACA's surge. "The large holders of Alpaca's native token, by transferring spot chips, operating rights, and distribution rights, have pledged allegiance to Binance's deep-water core interest circle, allowing it to fully harvest market liquidity before delisting, slaughtering opposing positions." Through a triple path of fees, contract liquidations, and spot volatility, they converted user attention into profits.
He also called on Binance to thoroughly investigate this matter, clarify which market maker is manipulating the candlestick patterns, as ALPACA saw an 18x surge within 24 hours with users liquidated of tens of millions of dollars, while previously GPS's 500% surge was promptly halted, and expressed his sentiment: "All of this is thought-provoking."
Wenze, the founder of Beta Capital, believes that bypassing the regular listing process, buying shells, renaming, and restarting has crossed Binance's bottom line of maintaining listing credibility and brand compliance. Binance sometimes has a high tolerance for market fluctuations, and the OM issuance only adjusts the collateralization ratio, with many projects only allowed for leveraged trading. However, once the project, such as these "shell projects," is identified, it is easily labeled for observation, triggering a vote for delisting, ultimately leading to delisting rather than using mild measures.
Renowned KOL Rui, "YeruiZhang," likened the ALPACA incident to "crazy revenge on an ex" and shared a piece of insider information, claiming that the original whale behind ALPACA was a team that controlled BSC's MEV for a period of time and expressed dissatisfaction with Binance's current management for some reason. The comments section is rampant with speculation that it is BSC's whale 48CLUB, and 48CLUB's Ian even personally appeared to eat "his own melon."
With the recent buzz around VOXEL's surge and the wealth effect and discussion surrounding ALPACA, more and more "delisting concepts" have emerged. This concept does not necessarily refer to tokens that have already been delisted but rather shares some common characteristics of delisted tokens.
Famous KOL Chuanmo recently shared on Twitter his logic for choosing concept tokens and listed several tokens, all of which experienced varying degrees of price increase after his recommendation.
His "Concept Delisting" strategy involves selecting low-cap tokens from Bybit and Binance, arranging them by market cap from lowest to highest, with almost 100% price increase for the tokens with the highest holdings/circulating market cap. He buys three tokens daily following this order with a fixed amount, and based on the holdings/circulating supply ratio, he removes tokens that no longer meet the criteria daily and continues to buy the new top three tokens.
Many community members have tested this strategy, with some creating helpful tools. The dreamer Disney "discountifu" has created a dashboard, and Vivek10 early bird "vivekw_eth" has developed a monitoring and alert system that can be directly pushed to WeChat with a copyable link, although it is currently deployed locally and not yet entirely stable.
However, when using tools created for free by community members, please be cautious. While there are many enthusiastic contributors in the community, there are also many uncertain factors in this dark forest.
In an increasingly insular market, retail investors not only have to contend with whales and other retail investors but also must bear many unstable elements. The recent ALPACA incident serves as a warning to us. Whether it's a primary or secondary listing on a top-tier exchange or the "Concept Delisting" approach, we need to make rational asset allocations amidst FOMO to protect our principal and reach the other shore.
The mention of all tokens above does not constitute financial investment advice "NFA".
Gate.io MemeBox has officially integrated with the Solana ecosystem, providing lightning-fast on-chain asset trading.
Taking Stock of the Top 10 Emerging Launchpad Platforms: Who Will Succeed in Disrupting Pump.fun?
Exclusive Interview with AllianceDAO Partner qw: Crypto Entrepreneurs Are Fleeing to AI, 90% of Crypto+AI Projects Are Misleading
From the Pokémon Scandal to Doubling Trading Volume, Unveiling the Logic Behind Sui's Recent Strong Rally
The "Yearn Finance" Effect: Cryptocurrency Funds Experience the Calm Before the Dawn
This Week in Review | Trump to Host Dinner for TRUMP Holders; Musk and US Treasury Secretary Engage in Heated Argument at the White House
ZORA Airdrop Disaster: Early Users "HODL" for Four Years, Average Per Person Less Than $40
History Doesn’t Repeat, But It Rhymes — Don’t Miss It This Time
Rejecting Mediocrity: A Web3 College Student Portrait
Who Is Controlling the TRUMP Token? 86.9% Whale Exit, Project Team's Alt Account Cash Out $112 Million
Weekly Recap | MANTRA (OM) Plunges Sparking Controversy; Powell Emphasizes No Immediate Market Intervention
Each to Their Own, Every Public Blockchain Has Its Purpose
April 16th Market Key Insights, How Much Did You Miss?
Is Solana About to Recover? Analyzing On-Chain MEME Whale Movement
Platform Token Valuation Revolution: Examining the Long-Term Exchange Ecosystem Battle Through the Quiet Rise of GT Market Cap
IOSG In-Depth Report: Unveiling the Harsh Reality of Web3 Consumer App Survival Rate at Only 7%
$COIN Joins S&P 500, but Coinbase Isn't Celebrating
On May 13, S&P Dow Jones Indices announced that Coinbase would officially replace Discover Financial Services in the S&P 500 on May 19. While other companies like Block and MicroStrategy, closely tied to Bitcoin, were already part of the S&P 500, Coinbase became the first cryptocurrency exchange whose primary business is in the index. This also signifies that cryptocurrency is gradually moving from the fringes to the mainstream in the U.S.
On the day of the announcement, Coinbase's stock price surged by 23%, surpassing the $250 mark. However, just 3 days later, Coinbase was hit by two consecutive events: a hack where employees were bribed to steal customer data and a demand for a $20 million ransom, and an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) into the authenticity of its claim of having over 100 million "verified users" in its securities filings and marketing materials. These two events acted as mini-bombs, and at the time of writing, Coinbase's stock had already dropped by over 7.3%.
Coincidentally, Discover Financial Services, being replaced by Coinbase, can also be considered the "Coinbase" of the previous payment era. Discover is a U.S.-based digital banking and payment services company headquartered in Illinois, founded in 1960. Its payment network, Discover Network, is the fourth largest payment network apart from Visa, Mastercard, and American Express.
In April, after the approval of the acquisition of Discover by the sixth-largest U.S. bank, Capital One, this well-established digital banking company of over 60 years smoothly handed over its S&P 500 "seat" to this emerging cryptocurrency "bank." This unexpected coincidence also portrayed the handover between the new and old eras in Coinbase's entry into the S&P 500, resembling a relay race scene. However, this relay baton also brought Coinbase's accumulated "external troubles and internal strife" to a tipping point.
Over the past decade, cryptocurrency exchanges have been the most stable "profit machines." They play a role in providing liquidity to the entire industry and rely on trading fees to sustain their operations. However, with the comprehensive rollout of ETF products in the U.S. market, this profit model is facing unprecedented challenges. As the leader in the "American stack," with over 80% of its business coming from the U.S., Coinbase is most affected by this.
Starting from the approval of Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs, traditional financial capital has significantly onboarded users and funds that originally belonged to exchanges in a more cost-effective, compliant, and transparent manner. The transaction fee revenue of cryptocurrency exchanges has started to decline, and this trend may further intensify in the coming months.
According to Coinbase's 2024 Q4 financial report, the platform's total trading revenue was $417 million, a 45% year-on-year decrease. The contribution of BTC and ETH's trading revenue dropped from 65% in the same period last year to less than 50%.
This decline is not a result of a decrease in market enthusiasm. In fact, since the approval of the Bitcoin ETF in January 2024, the inflow of BTC into the U.S. market has continued to reach new highs, with asset management giants like BlackRock and Fidelity rapidly expanding their management scale. Data shows that BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin ETF (IBIT) alone has surpassed $17 billion in assets under management. As of mid-May 2025, the cumulative net inflow of 11 major institutional Bitcoin spot ETFs on the market has exceeded $41.5 billion, with a total net asset value of $1214.69 billion, accounting for approximately 5.91% of the total Bitcoin market capitalization.
Institutional investors and some retail investors are shifting towards ETF products, partly due to compliance and tax considerations. On one hand, ETFs have much lower trading costs compared to cryptocurrency exchanges. While Coinbase's spot trading fee rate varies annually in a tiered manner but averages around 1.49%, for example, the management fee for IBIT ETF is only 0.25%, and the majority of ETF institution fees fluctuate around 0.15% to 0.25%.
In other words, the more rational users are, the more likely they are to move from exchanges to ETF products, especially for investors aiming for long-term holdings.
According to multiple sources, several institutions, including VanEck and Grayscale, have submitted applications to the SEC for a Solana (SOL) ETF, with some institutions also planning to submit an XRP ETF proposal. Once approved, this may trigger a new round of fund migration. According to a report submitted by Coinbase to the SEC, as of April, the platform's trading revenue from XRP and Solana accounted for 18% and 10%, nearly one-third of the platform's fee revenue.
However, the Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs passed in 2024 also reduced the fees for these two tokens on Coinbase from 30% and 15% to 26% and 10%, respectively. If the SOL and XRP ETFs are approved, it will further undermine the core fee revenue of exchanges like Coinbase.
The expansion of ETF products is gradually weakening the financial intermediary status of cryptocurrency exchanges. From their original roles as matchmakers and clearers to now gradually becoming mere "on-ramps and off-ramps" for funds, exchanges are seeing their marginal value squeezed by ETFs.
On May 12, 2025, SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins gave a keynote speech at the Tokenization and Cryptocurrency Working Group roundtable. The theme of his speech revolved around "It is a new day at the SEC," where he indicated that the SEC would not approach enforcement and regulation the same way as before but would instead pave the way for cryptocurrency assets in the U.S. market.
With signs of cryptocurrency compliance such as the SEC's "NEW DAY" declaration, an increasing number of traditional brokerages are attempting to enter the cryptocurrency industry. One of the most representative cases is the well-known U.S. brokerage Robinhood, which began expanding its crypto business in 2018. By the time of its IPO in 2021, Robinhood's crypto business revenue accounted for over 50% of the company, with a significant boost from the Dogecoin "moonshot" promoted by Musk.
In Q1 2025 earnings report, Robinhood showcased strong growth, especially in revenue from cryptocurrency and options trading. Fueled by Trump's Memecoin, cryptocurrency-related revenue reached $250 million, nearly doubling year-over-year. Consequently, Robinhood Gold subscription users reached 3.5 million, a 90% increase from the previous year, with the rapid growth of Robinhood Gold providing the company with a stable source of income.
Meanwhile, RobinHood is actively pursuing acquisitions in the cryptocurrency space. In 2024, it announced a $2 billion acquisition of the long-standing European cryptocurrency exchange Bitstamp. Additionally, Canada's largest cryptocurrency CEX, WonderFi, which recently went public on the Toronto Stock Exchange, also announced its integration with RobinHood Crypto. After obtaining virtual asset licenses in the UK, Canada, Singapore, and other markets, RobinHood has taken a proactive approach in the compliant cryptocurrency trading market.
Furthermore, an increasing number of brokerage firms are exploring the same path. Futu Securities, Tiger Brokers, and others are also dipping their toes into cryptocurrency trading, with some having applied for or obtained the VA license from the Hong Kong SFC. Although their user bases are currently small, traditional brokerages have a natural advantage in user trust, regulatory licenses, and low fee structures. This could pose a threat to native cryptocurrency platforms in the future.
In April 2025, security researchers discovered that some Coinbase user data was leaked on the dark web. While the platform initially responded by attributing it to a "technical misinformation," it still raised concerns among users regarding its security and privacy protection. Just two days before Dow Jones Indexes announced Coinbase's addition to the S&P 500 Index, on May 11, 2025, Coinbase received an email from an unknown threat actor claiming to have obtained customer account information and internal documents, demanding a $20 million ransom to keep the data private. Subsequent investigations confirmed the data breach.
Cybercriminals obtained the data by bribing overseas customer service agents and support staff, mainly in "non-U.S. regions such as India." These agents abused their access to Coinbase's internal customer support system and stole customer data. As early as February this year, blockchain detective ZachXBT revealed on X platform that between December 2024 and January 2025, Coinbase users lost over $65 million to social engineering scams, with the actual amount potentially higher.
Among the victims was a well-known figure, 67-year-old Ed Suman, an established artist in the art world for nearly two decades, having been involved in the creation of artworks such as Jeff Koons' "Balloon Dog" sculpture. Earlier this year, he fell victim to an impersonation scam involving fake Coinbase customer support, resulting in a loss of over $2 million in cryptocurrency. ZachXBT critiqued Coinbase for its inadequate handling of such scams, noting that other major exchanges have not faced similar issues and recommending Coinbase to enhance its security measures.
Amidst a series of ongoing social engineering incidents, although there has not been any impact on user assets at the technical level so far, it has raised concerns among many retail and institutional investors. Especially institutions holding massive assets on Coinbase. Just considering the U.S. BTC ETF institutions, as of mid-May 2025, they collectively hold nearly 840,000 BTC, and 75% of these are custodied by Coinbase. If we price BTC at $100,000, this amount reaches a staggering $63 billion, which is equivalent to the nominal GDP of two Iceland in the year 2024.
In addition, Coinbase Custody also serves over 300 institutional clients, including hedge funds, family offices, pension funds, and endowments. As of the Q1 2025 financial report, Coinbase's total assets under management (including institutional and retail clients) reached $404 billion. The specific amount of institutional custodied assets was not explicitly disclosed in the latest report, but it should still be over 50% based on the Q4 2024 report.
Once this security barrier is breached, not only could the rate of user attrition far exceed expectations, but more importantly, institutional trust in it would undermine the foundation of its business. Therefore, after a hacking event, Coinbase's stock price plummeted significantly.
Facing a decline in spot trading fee revenue, Coinbase is also accelerating its transformation, attempting to find growth opportunities in derivatives and emerging assets. Coinbase acquired a stake in the options platform Deribit at the end of 2024 and announced the official launch of perpetual contract products in 2025. This acquisition fills in Coinbase's gap in options trading and its relatively small global market share.
Deribit has a strong presence in non-U.S. markets, especially in Asia and Europe. The acquisition has enabled Coinbase to gain a dominant position in bitcoin and ethereum options trading on Deribit, accounting for approximately 80% of the global options trading volume, with daily trading volume remaining above $2 billion.
Meanwhile, 80-90% of Deribit's customer base consists of institutional investors, with their professionalism and liquidity in the Bitcoin and Ethereum options market highly favored by institutions. Coinbase's compliance advantage, coupled with its already robust institutional ecosystem, makes it even more suitable. By using institutions as an entry point, it can face the squeeze from giants like Binance and OKX in the derivatives market.
Facing a similar dilemma is Kraken, which is attempting to replicate Binance Futures' model in non-U.S. markets. Since the derivatives market relies more on professional users, fee rates are relatively higher and stickiness is stronger, making it a significant source of revenue for exchanges. In the first half of 2025, Kraken completed the acquisition of TradeStation Crypto and a futures exchange, aiming to build a complete derivatives trading ecosystem to hedge the risk of declining spot transaction fee income.
With the surge of Memecoin in 2024, Binance, OKX, and various CEX platforms began massively listing small-market-cap, highly volatile tokens to activate active trading users. Due to the wealth effect and trading activity of Memecoins, Coinbase was also forced to join the battle, successively listing popular tokens from the Solana ecosystem such as BOOK OF MEME and Dogwifhat. Although these coins are controversial, they are frequently traded, with fee rates several times higher than mainstream coins, serving as a "blood-boosting" method for spot trading.
However, due to its status as a publicly traded company, this practice is a riskier endeavor for Coinbase. Even in the current crypto-friendly environment, the SEC is still investigating whether tokens like SOL, ADA, and SAND constitute securities.
In addition to the forced transformation strategies carried out by the aforementioned CEXs, they are also starting to lay out RWAs and the most talked-about stablecoin payment fields, such as the PYUSD launched through a collaboration between Coinbase and Paypal, Coinbase's support for the Euro stablecoin EURC by Circle that complies with EU MiCA regulatory requirements, or the USD1 launched through a collaboration between Binance and WIFL. In the increasingly crowded trading field, many CEXs have shifted their focus from just the trading market to the application field.
The golden age of transaction fees has quietly ended, and the second half of the crypto exchange platform game has silently begun.
Binance Sparks "Delist Concept": Can CEX Still Produce the Next ALPACA?
On April 24, Binance announced that it would delist four tokens, including Alpaca Finance ($ALPACA), on May 2, and cease trading of these pairs' perpetual futures contracts at 00:00 on May 1, 2025, Beijing time. Fast forward to the last day of perpetual futures trading delisting, ALPACA surged on the liquidation heat map. Over the past 24 hours, a total of $52.21 million evaporated in ALPACA's contract trading, exceeding the sum of the token's liquidation volume over the past two years.
Historically, when a token is listed on Binance, many traders would buy the news instantly ("Buy the News"). As the Binance listing effect gradually waned, traders found another path, which is to short sell the tokens set to be delisted from Binance ("Sell the News"). This strategy often has a very high success rate. However, as traders followed this path, they encountered the Alpaca on their short-selling journey.
Every thrilling market manipulation game requires careful preparation. Before Binance's official announcement, on April 10, $ALPACA was ranked 7th in the preliminary list of the second batch of "Vote for Delisting" on Binance, causing its price to plummet almost by half. However, in the five days leading up to Binance's official announcement, from April 19 to April 23, trading volume suddenly surged.
The story traces back to the start of Binance's second round of "Vote for Delisting," where ALPACA was included in the delisting candidates list, ranked 7th among 17 projects. After the completion of Binance's delisting vote count, $ALPACA was included in the projects to be delisted. The market did not react significantly, price fluctuations were not substantial, but trading volumes expanded abnormally, suggesting the entry of "manipulative funds" into the community.
On April 24, Binance officially announced the delisting of the $ALPACA spot trading pair on May 2 and the settlement of the futures contracts on April 30. Following the announcement, the spot price of $ALPACA dropped from $0.0329 to $0.029, with a market cap of only about $5 million. However, what followed were two price "rollercoaster" moments; within an hour, the price surged from $0.029 to $0.0857, an increase of about 195%, only to rapidly drop back to $0.04 within 3 hours. Shorts were caught off guard, and the open interest of contracts surged rapidly, initiating the "long and short grinder" mode.
On April 25, Alpaca Finance officially announced that the trading volume in the past 24 hours had exceeded 1 billion tokens. The liquidity provider had suggested a "minting for stability" to be returned to the treasury after a decrease in trading volume. However, as public opinion began to ferment, opposition filled the community. Alpaca Finance deleted the previous tweet and posted a new one at 9 p.m. on the same night, announcing the cancellation of the minting due to community opposition.
On April 26, Binance amended the contract funding rate rules, shortening the maximum rate cap settlement period to hourly and setting it at up to ±2%. Some high-leverage accounts continued to hold short positions against the high rate and were liquidated. Millions of dollars disappeared within a few hours, with $13 million in short positions vanishing on a token with a market cap of less than $30 million.
With the establishment of this short-selling trend, the price skyrocketed nearly 12 times from a low of $0.029 to $0.3477 within 3 days. The contract's open interest surged significantly, especially with a notable increase in short positions, resembling a microcosm of the Wall Street battle of GME's retail investors. However, this time, the retail investors' opponents could continue to mint additional chips.
From April 26 to April 29, these days were relatively calm, with the price fluctuating around $0.2 to $0.34. On April 29, Binance announced another increase in the rate cap to ±4%. Theoretically, such a high rate would severely impact short positions. If the rate remains at -4%, the bears will face a 96% "cost of ruin" after holding a short position for 24 hours. However, miraculously, the price plummeted from $0.27 to $0.067.
On April 30, with the contract delisting and liquidation scheduled in the final 24 hours, the price continued to experience intense fluctuations. ALPACA's attention peaked, with its highest price reaching $1.2 at one point. From a week before the delisting announcement to the eve of the contract delisting, ALPACA's price surged 40 times, creating an independent market for the token delisted by Binance. The total liquidation volume across the network also reached $50 million, with $42 million in "bearish fuel" beneath the price surge.
After the first surge of ALPACA, Heyi, the co-founder of Binance, replied to a netizen asking, "Can the teacher who buys the shell guarantee breakeven?" This has also triggered endless speculation among community members.
KOL Tunbtc believes that Heyi's reply to this matter was the starting point of ALPACA's surge. "The large holders of Alpaca's native token, by transferring spot chips, operating rights, and distribution rights, have pledged allegiance to Binance's deep-water core interest circle, allowing it to fully harvest market liquidity before delisting, slaughtering opposing positions." Through a triple path of fees, contract liquidations, and spot volatility, they converted user attention into profits.
He also called on Binance to thoroughly investigate this matter, clarify which market maker is manipulating the candlestick patterns, as ALPACA saw an 18x surge within 24 hours with users liquidated of tens of millions of dollars, while previously GPS's 500% surge was promptly halted, and expressed his sentiment: "All of this is thought-provoking."
Wenze, the founder of Beta Capital, believes that bypassing the regular listing process, buying shells, renaming, and restarting has crossed Binance's bottom line of maintaining listing credibility and brand compliance. Binance sometimes has a high tolerance for market fluctuations, and the OM issuance only adjusts the collateralization ratio, with many projects only allowed for leveraged trading. However, once the project, such as these "shell projects," is identified, it is easily labeled for observation, triggering a vote for delisting, ultimately leading to delisting rather than using mild measures.
Renowned KOL Rui, "YeruiZhang," likened the ALPACA incident to "crazy revenge on an ex" and shared a piece of insider information, claiming that the original whale behind ALPACA was a team that controlled BSC's MEV for a period of time and expressed dissatisfaction with Binance's current management for some reason. The comments section is rampant with speculation that it is BSC's whale 48CLUB, and 48CLUB's Ian even personally appeared to eat "his own melon."
With the recent buzz around VOXEL's surge and the wealth effect and discussion surrounding ALPACA, more and more "delisting concepts" have emerged. This concept does not necessarily refer to tokens that have already been delisted but rather shares some common characteristics of delisted tokens.
Famous KOL Chuanmo recently shared on Twitter his logic for choosing concept tokens and listed several tokens, all of which experienced varying degrees of price increase after his recommendation.
His "Concept Delisting" strategy involves selecting low-cap tokens from Bybit and Binance, arranging them by market cap from lowest to highest, with almost 100% price increase for the tokens with the highest holdings/circulating market cap. He buys three tokens daily following this order with a fixed amount, and based on the holdings/circulating supply ratio, he removes tokens that no longer meet the criteria daily and continues to buy the new top three tokens.
Many community members have tested this strategy, with some creating helpful tools. The dreamer Disney "discountifu" has created a dashboard, and Vivek10 early bird "vivekw_eth" has developed a monitoring and alert system that can be directly pushed to WeChat with a copyable link, although it is currently deployed locally and not yet entirely stable.
However, when using tools created for free by community members, please be cautious. While there are many enthusiastic contributors in the community, there are also many uncertain factors in this dark forest.
In an increasingly insular market, retail investors not only have to contend with whales and other retail investors but also must bear many unstable elements. The recent ALPACA incident serves as a warning to us. Whether it's a primary or secondary listing on a top-tier exchange or the "Concept Delisting" approach, we need to make rational asset allocations amidst FOMO to protect our principal and reach the other shore.
The mention of all tokens above does not constitute financial investment advice "NFA".
App