The siren call of “free money” in the crypto space. Sounds great, right? If we’re being honest, are they really democratizing wealth in the way they claim to be, or just some new permutation of keeping the already-rich rich? As someone who’s followed whale movements in the cryptoverse for years, the trends I’m observing about airdrops in 2025 should give you serious pause to the prevailing narrative today.

Airdrops Really Benefit Whom?

The government’s official line is that airdrops are just a way to reward early adopters and incentivize community engagement. That’s partially true. Sure, projects do use airdrops to seed liquidity and attract users, recently most notably on Ethereum layer 2s. With plenty of drops happening, you can rack them up with little effort! Whether it’s participating in testnets, staking your tokens, providing liquidity or even just tweeting about a project. Here's the thing: who is best positioned to maximize those rewards?

Think about it. Who can afford to be active on every testnet at the same time. Who has the capital available to lock up large amounts capital to offer liquidity? After all, who’s got the time to rig every engagement metric on social media like a video game cheat code? It ain’t the everyday joe going into crypto. It's the whales.

They’re the ones with the capital, the bots, and the centralized teams to farm these airdrops at scale. I’ve watched wallets associated with known whales vacuuming up huge swaths of airdrop distributions. We’re talking about large % of the airdrop supply… It might be 5%, or 10% or even 20% of it all going to a handful of addresses.

It means that they now have, as compared to other stakeholder groups, a disproportionate influence over the project’s governance. This leads me to my next point...

Governance: Decentralized or Whale-Controlled?

Airdrops are sometimes pitched as a method of decentralizing governance. Whitelisting a diverse set of token users provides community control and decentralization. This empowers them to be able to take an active role in decision making about the future of the project. Sounds great in theory. Reality? Not so much.

If a significant chunk of the airdropped tokens ends up in the hands of a few whales, they effectively control the governance. In doing so, they are often able to swing votes in their favor, deflect project focus, and profit themselves to the severe detriment of the much larger community.

I've analyzed the governance structures of several projects that have conducted large airdrops, and the pattern is clear: whale dominance undermines the principles of community-led decision-making.

Are we actually creating decentralized organizations, or are we just replicating traditional power structures in a new, crypto-flavored form?

Anti-Sybil Measures: Are They Enough?

No longer do projects fall prey to the whale problem. To combat it, they’re currently rolling out anti-Sybil precautions to prevent people from making a million wallets and unfairly cashing in on airdrop allocations.

Let's be real. These measures are often easily circumvented. Whales can easily employ VPNs, sidestep with fire teams to puppetwalk dozens of wallets, and generate bot social media personalities. But they have the capacity to remain a few moves ahead.

  • Duplicate IP addresses: Are multiple wallets coming from the same location?
  • Similar transaction patterns: Are the wallets interacting with the same contracts in the same way?
  • Identical social media profiles: Are the Twitter accounts linked to the wallets using the same names and profile pictures?

The Unexpected Connection? Think of it like tax loopholes. But every time the government writes laws to close loopholes that allow tax evasion through offshoring the rich, the rich offshores find ways around those loopholes. Airdrops and strong anti-Sybil measures are the crypto equivalent.

Were you shocked to discover that smart projects don’t necessarily want to go all out in preventing Sybil attacks. Think about it. Airdrops are the original user acquisition and marketing tactic. If a project over-moderates, it may miss the opportunity to engage potential users and cool the excitement. The reality is that projects are balancing the fine line between equity and PR campaign.

Airdrops aren't inherently bad. While controversial, they can be an important part of the toolbox for user acquisition and community building. Let’s be realistic about their limitations. Don't fall for the hype. Do your own research. And remember, the "free money" often comes with a hidden cost: the concentration of power in the hands of a few.

Are you surprised that projects often don't want to be too effective at stopping Sybil attacks? Think about it. Airdrops are all about user acquisition and creating buzz. If a project cracks down too hard, it risks alienating potential users and dampening the hype. Projects are walking a tightrope between fairness and marketing.

Airdrops aren't inherently bad. They can be a useful tool for user acquisition and community building. But we need to be realistic about their limitations. Don't fall for the hype. Do your own research. And remember, the "free money" often comes with a hidden cost: the concentration of power in the hands of a few.