Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Launchpad
Be early to the next big token project
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
More
The NomNoms points system progress bar has reached 90%. The core logic of this points mechanism is actually quite straightforward—active community members earn skewed rewards through contributions, which sounds pretty good in theory.
But here’s the problem. After the wave of collaborations and sales with Nomunity and MonkeDAO, people in the community quickly noticed an awkward phenomenon: the distribution of NomNoms points is becoming increasingly uneven. Some members receive excessively high incentives, while others get barely anything. This has sparked discussions—Is the current points distribution mechanism truly fair? Can it effectively motivate all contributors?
It seems that NomNoms’ original design was good, but in the actual implementation process, how to ensure that every community participant feels their contributions are being fairly recognized remains a question that needs careful consideration.
The huge difference in points is really outrageous; it feels like someone is manipulating behind the scenes.
Let's just stop at 90% progress. Instead of rushing, it's better to figure out the allocation mechanism first.
Naked wealth gap, it's been obvious for a long time.
What's the use of a 90% progress bar? The mechanism itself is crippled.
After this wave of cooperation, the division has become even more serious, really the end.
Feels like we're about to start a tug-of-war again.
No matter how beautiful the mechanism is, poor execution can't be supported.
It's the old trick of uneven distribution, I've seen it all before
Feels like these project teams are just good at storytelling, but when it comes to implementation, they fall flat
It seems like NomNoms has just brought wealth disparity onto the chain—some people get the meat, others only get the broth. That's really incredible.
Why didn't they test this mechanism properly from the start? Only now are the issues being discovered?
It's the same old story. It seems fair, but secretly someone is taking the big share. That's outrageous.
The point system's failure still depends on community feedback; otherwise, it's just paving the red carpet for the whales.
Quickly change the mechanism, or else it's going to fall apart.
I really don't understand such a big gap in points, is this really called motivation?
Sounds like an early distribution failed again, classic case.
It feels like the early whales have already taken their fill, and now only the leftovers remain.
This allocation mechanism is a bit disappointing; is it really fair? I have my doubts.
The incentive mechanism has been messed up again; it's the same old trick.
So, the key is still how to prevent whales from monopolizing. Clearly, it hasn't been stopped yet.