Toward Resilient Airdrop Mechanisms: Empirical Measurement of Hunter Profits and Airdrop Game Theory Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airdrops issued by platforms are to distribute tokens, drive user adoption, and promote decentralized services. The distributions attract airdrop hunters (attackers), who exploit the system by employing Sybil attacks, i.e., using multiple identities to manipulate token allocations to meet eligibility criteria. While debates around airdrop hunting question the potential benefits to the ecosystem, exploitative behaviors like Sybil attacks clearly undermine the system’s integrity, eroding trust and credibility. Despite the increasing prevalence of these tactics, a gap persists in the literature regarding systematic modeling of airdrop hunters’ costs and returns, alongside the theoretical models capturing the interactions among all roles for airdrop mechanism design. Our study first conducts an empirical analysis of transaction data from the Hop Protocol and LayerZero, identifying prevalent attack patterns and estimating hunters’ expected profits. Furthermore, we develop a game-theory model that simulates the interactions between attackers, organizers, and bounty hunters, proposing optimal incentive structures that enhance detection while minimizing organizational costs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".