In recent years, it has become common for blockchain projects to attract users through airdrop marketing; however, there are many cases of exploiting human greed and meticulously designing 'money-grabbing' traps. Today, let’s talk about the Mantra project ($OM token), a Layer 1 blockchain that claims to be about 'real-world assets (RWA)', and how it allegedly implements fraudulent behavior through airdrop marketing, even backstabbing the community.
1. The 'bait' of airdrop promises.
In August 2024, Mantra announced a high-profile airdrop of 50 million $OM, worth over $50 million at the time. This figure is eye-catching, especially targeting users holding specific NFTs, painting a beautiful picture of 'earn by participating'. However, upon closer inspection, this is merely a classic 'big promise' tactic. The airdrop rules are vague, the distribution timeline keeps getting delayed, and there have even been multiple changes to the vesting plan, keeping users in a state of 'visible but untouchable.' Are these repeated changes in promises deliberately dragging users' appetites and extending the hype cycle?
2. After two delays, real users are backstabbed by witches in the community.
What’s more infuriating is that after the airdrop plan was delayed twice, Mantra marked a large number of real users as 'cheaters' under the pretext of 'combating Sybil attacks' and canceled their eligibility for the airdrop. Many of these users were early NFT holders, community contributors, and long-term supporters who participated according to the rules but were cut off by the project team. In contrast, some bulk-acting 'witch accounts' managed to pass through smoothly. This kind of 'killing the familiar but sparing the strangers' operation not only exposes the absurdity of the project's screening mechanism but is also a complete betrayal of community trust. The delays are meant to buy time, while the witches aim to cut costs, leaving real users as the biggest victims.
3. Forced bridging and price manipulation.
Mantra also requires users to bridge $OM from Ethereum (ERC-20) to its mainnet to participate in the airdrop. This operation appears to be a technical upgrade but hides a secret. Bridging not only increases user costs (Gas fees) but also allows the project team to control the token circulation pace. After the mainnet launch, the price of $OM surged—skyrocketing from $0.0584 at the beginning of 2024 to $3.81 by the end of the year, an increase of up to 64 times. However, does this surge genuinely reflect market demand, or is it a result of artificial manipulation by the project team through locking, airdrop expectations, etc.? Once users bridge in large numbers, and the project team fails to fulfill the airdrop, where does the funding go? This is worth pondering.
4. Fake voting and community manipulation.
There have been user reports that Mantra is suspected of forging voting results in community governance. For instance, in a key proposal deciding the airdrop allocation, the voting process lacked transparency, and there were even accusations of 'dead voting' (i.e., inactive accounts suddenly participating). Such actions not only undermine community trust but also raise doubts about whether the project team is using the guise of 'decentralization' to cover up centralized profit distribution. The airdrop has become a marketing gimmick rather than a real user reward.
5. Underlying motives: cashing out and running away?
Mantra's partnerships seem flashy, such as its collaboration plans with Dubai real estate groups DAMAC and MAG, claiming to tokenize billions of dollars in assets. However, to date, these collaborations have mostly remained at the 'Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)' stage, lacking substantial progress. Considering its history of starting as a DAO in 2020 and transforming into L1 in 2022, one can't help but wonder: is the project team raising the token price through airdrops to attract retail investors, ultimately paving the way for early investors and the team to cash out? Once the token price peaks, if the airdrop is delayed and the project 'runs away', users will become the biggest victims.
6. Beware of the 'DeFi buzzword' trap.
Mantra is good at packaging, frequently mentioning hot concepts like 'RWA', 'compliance', and 'Cosmos ecosystem' to cater to market sentiment. However, no matter how good the concepts are, execution is key. A project that operated for four years before launching its mainnet has managed to achieve such exaggerated increases in a short period—does this indicate real technology or pure speculation? Investors need to keep their eyes open and not be blinded by the fantasy of 'getting rich through airdrops'.
Conclusion
Mantra's airdrop marketing seems generous but is fraught with doubts. From vague promises, forced bridging to the backstabbing of real users, it all points to one goal: to exploit user trust for personal gain. The blockchain world is full of mixed elements, and I advise everyone to ask a few more 'whys' before participating in any airdrop, and not let their wallets become someone else's ATM. What do you think of Mantra's 'airdrop show'? Feel free to leave a comment for discussion!
