#空投活动 Seeing Huma's recent actions, several historical cases immediately came to mind. During the ICO boom of 2017, how many projects that promised airdrops ultimately became tools for rug pulls? And Huma's approach this time reflects, to some extent, a new way of thinking about ecosystem governance in this cycle.

The key lies in the logic of "continuous fulfillment"—holding 10,000 HUMA or staking 100% of the airdropped tokens to retain the Vanguard badge. This isn't new, but the underlying design philosophy is worth pondering. The project is saying: your identity isn't a one-time gift; it's proof that you are truly involved and committed. Compared to projects in 2018 that airdropped tokens and then disappeared, how many of those tokens ended up as worthless junk?

But this also exposes a problem. Setting a grace period until January 5, 2026, essentially gives users time to "catch up." What does this imply? It suggests that many early holders may not have understood the rules, or that the rules themselves were not clear enough. From a cyclical perspective, each bull and bear market cycle, combined with information asymmetry between project teams and communities, can lead to such disputes.

We saw similar situations during the DeFi airdrop wave of 2021—what happened to projects that set the bar too high? Either community splits or the ecosystem becomes cold and inactive. Huma's current compromise—initially restoring functionality and then extending the grace period—is a way of exchanging time for trust. But in the long run, if most people still can't meet the requirements, the authority of this badge system will be seriously undermined.

History teaches us that the essence of airdrops is a cold start, but the real driver of ecosystem vitality is the incentive mechanism design for long-term participation. How Huma proceeds from here is worth observing over the next two quarters.