Once the platform's new regulations are implemented, discussions about airdrop participation and configuration have not stopped. After reviewing many analyses, I think it's necessary to clarify the calculations.

First, let's talk about the relationship between configuration schemes and cost-benefit. The top-tier 2+17 combination scores a total of 19 points, with a monthly cost of $240, and can lock in 285 participation points. This scheme targets high-end players; moving down, the 2+16 main combination scores 18 points, costs $100 per month, and locks in 270 points—this is the preferred entry-level plan for retail investors; further down is the 2+15 potential combination, with a total of 17 points, a $50 monthly cost, and 255 participation points, which many institutions are quietly deploying; the basic entry-level 2+14 combination only requires $23 per month to reliably earn 240 points, with a total of 16 points; there's also an overlooked efficient scheme—the 1+15 combination, which also reaches 16 points and the 240-point threshold but at a lower cost.

Now, assuming the airdrop threshold is around 260 points, and each airdrop is stable at about $60, the profit differences become apparent. The fully equipped 285-point setup can maximize airdrop claims, with an estimated return of $360, net profit guaranteed; the main 270-point players can claim about 4 times, earning around $140, offering good value; the 255-point potential players also get about 4 airdrops but with lower initial investment, earning nearly $190—like quietly making a fortune; those at the 240-point threshold can secure at least 2 airdrops, earning $100, very friendly to beginners; even the lowest configuration 1+15 efficiency players can earn $70 from 2 airdrops, making small investments feasible.

The key issue here is—on the surface, the platform has added a deduction mechanism for claiming, which looks like tightening rules, but in reality, resources are tilted toward high-score players. Large accounts are barely affected, while the biggest impact is on ordinary users, who need to carefully optimize their configurations to stay competitive.

More painfully, if the single airdrop remains at around $60 for a long time, high-score teams are likely to gradually raise the effective participation threshold above 260 points, leaving retail investors with less and less room. Those hoping to share in this airdrop bounty need to finalize their configuration schemes now.

Ultimately, the platform's intention may be to optimize the ecosystem, but will these rule changes directly exacerbate the polarization of scores? It's hard to say at this point; it depends on subsequent enforcement and data feedback. I sincerely hope the platform keeps a close eye on data, maintains ecological balance, and doesn't let participation thresholds keep rising.