After the implementation of the 🔥 rule adjustments, studios engaged in airdrop operations seem to have spotted new opportunities.

Let's take a look at the current mainstream configurations and cost comparisons:

·Configuration A: 2+17 scores 19 points, with a monthly investment of around $240, aiming for 285 points to compete for the core rewards
·Configuration B: 2+16 scores 18 points, with a monthly cost of about $100, maintaining around 270 points
·Configuration C: 2+15 scores 17 points, with a monthly expense of approximately $50, reaching 255 points — the most commonly used setup for studios
·Configuration D: 2+14 scores 16 points, costing $23 per month, accumulating 240 points
·Configuration E: 1+15 also scores 16 points, offering high cost-performance, especially suitable for batch launching new accounts

Assuming the threshold is set at 220 points, with each airdrop calculated at $40:

·285-point configuration needs 6 participations, with a profit of about $300
·270-point configuration participates 4 times, earning around $110
·255-point configuration participates 4 times, with a profit of about $150
·240-point configuration participates 2 times, with a profit of around $80
·1+15 configuration participates 2 times, with a profit of about $45 per account (the maximum for a single account can even reach $5350)

Whether the threshold is 220 or 240, studios are actually not too worried — in fact, it might inadvertently push retail users out. The new rules add a point deduction mechanism, which seems stricter, but the core reward pool is likely to be monopolized by operators, making it even harder for retail participants to compete based on scores.

Once each round of airdrops stabilizes around $40 for a long period, studios are very likely to quickly raise the threshold above 240 points, further shrinking the profit space for ordinary participants. Relying on "riding the rewards"? Things might only get tougher.

In short, the original intention of the rules might be to promote fairness, but in practice, they have evolved into a situation where "who controls the resources wins everything." It’s recommended that project teams pay more attention to score liquidity and ecological balance, and not let their initial intentions be ultimately distorted.