On February 20, Kaito airdrop was officially launched. This AI-driven crypto project, backed by top VCs and valued at $1.7 billion, has attracted widespread attention from the global community. As a representative of the Yap-to-Earn model, Kaito rewards users through social media interactions, trying to push the InfoFi concept to a new level.
According to information released by Kaito, the core mechanism of this airdrop revolves around Yap Points. Token economics shows that 10% of the tokens are initially allocated to the community (56.67% of the total supply is planned for the community and ecology, and 19.5% for long-term incentives), and the rest are allocated to the team (35%) and early investors (8.3%). The official emphasizes supporting long-term holders and incentivizing users through HODLer badges and Genesis NFT bonuses.
After KAITO went online, the market performance was relatively stable. According to market data, compared with some airdrop projects that dropped by more than 50% on the first day, the price fluctuation of Kaito on the day of airdrop was controlled at around 30%.
However, the community has mixed opinions on Kaito airdrops, with some expressing positive opinions on the project’s generosity and potential, while others are strongly dissatisfied with the expectation gap and distribution rules. BlockBeats summarized the positive and negative comments on Kaito airdrops based on user feedback on the X platform.
What does the community think?
For many users, the biggest attraction of Kaito airdrops is its zero cost, high return feature. X user @celiawan 2 mentioned that most users get 4-6 figures of airdrops for free without spending a penny, so they feel that the Kaito project is more sincere. Especially for ordinary retail investors and middle-level users, hundreds to thousands of dollars in rewards exceed many peoples expectations for zero-cost projects. Some people even think that if it is placed on other projects, the team should be praised for their courage. This view has gained a certain resonance in the community, especially among those users who did not have high expectations for airdrops before.
In addition, some users recognized the value of Kaito and believed that Kaito has core value by optimizing information through AI. @BroLeonAus believes that as a protocol that can already generate revenue and effectively change the behavior pattern of a part of the industry ecosystem, this is much more meaningful than most ghost chains that reinvent the wheel in my opinion. Maybe Kaito is not as good as everyone imagined before, but it should not be as bad as many people criticized tonight. @bee 926 cn said in a tweet that although the airdrop caused controversy, he was optimistic about the future of Kaito and had experienced its product Kaito Pro.
On the other hand, there are also many negative feedbacks on Kaito airdrops, with the main arguments focusing on expectation management and distribution rules.
Many users said that their expectations were pushed up by the communitys heated discussions before the airdrop. @Route 2 FI said that he had expected the airdrop to get $50 to $120, and although it was possible to buy it back quickly, he ended up selling the KAITO airdrop first.
@Cary_Zz mentioned that before the official token economics was announced, there was a rumor that each Yap point would be worth $100 or Genesis NFT holders would receive excess returns. However, the actual result was about $21 per Yap, and the overall airdrop ratio was 10%, which was far below expectations, greatly disappointing the community that was full of expectations.
In this regard, @zijingNFT said that Kaitos expectations were overhyped, and many participating KOLs mined for the sake of social mining. But now the price of the currency is too far from the ideal, and FUD is inevitable. @BroLeonAus has a similar view. He pointed out in a tweet that more criticism comes from the gap in expectations. This sentiment runs through almost all negative comments and has become the focus of community discussion.
Not only did the returns fall short of expectations, but the value considerations set by the project party in the distribution rules of this airdrop also caused dissatisfaction.
First, Andre Cronje, founder of Sonic Labs, posted on social media, For reasons I will never understand, Coinbase has refused to list S for 8 years. At the same time, because I refuse to do anything on Base, I cannot claim the Kaito airdrop.
@hellosuoha pointed out, Having consistent values is a very interesting behavior. Anyway, only you know whether it is consistent or not. In the end, those who get a large proportion are not satisfied, and those who get a small proportion are even less satisfied. Only those who received an airdrop right after registration are satisfied. Some netizens even joked in the comment section, Why didnt I think that values could be played with so much fun?
It’s not just a matter of values; the specific distribution ratio of the airdrop also makes the community dissatisfied.
@yuyue_chris wrote, “There is a clear differentiation in the reputation of top and mid-level KOLs: the top KOLs are generally not very satisfied;
The middle and lower levels are very grateful to $KAITO . @mdzzi also has a similar view, The victory of the middle and lower level KOLs, the influence of the top KOLs has been harvested, and believes that the rewards between the top contributors and new users are not equal.
In response to this, some KOLs listed their own data. @0x Breadguy mentioned, “It’s a bit outrageous that I have to stake $120,000 worth of $KAITO to get the same badge as someone who staked $5.”
@0x0funky speculated that Yaps scores are not proportional to Kaito. He said that one Yaps point is equivalent to about 7.5 Kaito. Many 20-point conversions are equivalent to 20 Kaito for one point. It should be the minimum living allowance and then the additional amount based on the Yaps score.
@CyberPhilos combined the consistency of values with Kaito project owners and the ratio, and made a guess: For those who flatter Kaito, the ratio of yap:kaito is 1:20 or even higher; for those who are neutral, the ratio of yap:kaito is 1:10; for those who have criticized Kaito, the ratio of yap:kaito is 1:2.
In addition, the rapid selling of large airdrop holders (on-chain data shows that 7 of the top 12 people cleared their positions ) and the design with no lock-up period also made the community worry that the project would fall into a short-term speculative cycle of hype-surge-dumping.
How is the performance of AI data tool coin issuance?
While the community was having a heated discussion about Kaito’s airdrop, another AI data tool that issued coins posted a picture on the 21st showing the amount of airdrops received by a KOL from Kaito, as well as the KOL’s selling ratio analyzed by its own AI tool. In fact, this is not the first time that a data tool has issued coins. Previously, Binance launched the Launchpad project Crypto data analysis platform Arkham (ARKM), which is also an on-chain data intelligence analysis platform. It uses AI (Ultra Engine) to link blockchain addresses with real-world entities to provide insights and analysis of transaction behaviors.
Related reading: After Arkham, what other data tools have not issued tokens?
Similar to Kaito, Arkham is also classified as an AI data tool. Its goal is to analyze the information fragmentation problem in the crypto world through technical means and provide users with Alpha opportunities. The difference is that Kaito is more inclined to social data, while Arkham focuses on on-chain data. So what is the current situation of Arkham, the first to issue coins to data tools? In terms of price, according to market data, the current price of $ARKM is US$0.71, and its historical high is US$3.12 on March 10, 2024. The current price has fallen by nearly 80%, showing greater volatility. Perhaps because it is classified as an AI project, the price has fluctuated with the rise and fall of the entire AI sector.
In the current market where AI sector is performing mediocrely, can Kaito’s TVL after issuing tokens break the silence of various AI projects and bring back the market’s enthusiasm? Or will it follow the old path of Arkham and rise and fall with the entire sector? Or will it compete with Arkham for the ecological niche of AI tools? All of this remains to be seen.
