Blast’s multiple PUA user airdrops finally came to an end, and the airdrop did not satisfy everyone. This time, the airdrop was very inclusive, with almost everyone who participated in the interaction receiving the airdrop, but the amount of money was indeed low, equivalent to less than 1U. The largest holder received about 23 billion points, which translates to approximately 50 million tokens, or roughly $1.5 million at the initial issuance price of $0.03.
The community has criticized this inclusive airdrop method, especially its “killing the big holders” behavior, which has caused strong dissatisfaction among the big holders. User X @Christianeth stated that they deposited $50 million on Blast, but only received a $100,000 airdrop. There are also complaints about the serious inflation of Blast points.
In the past few months, Ethereum Layer2 projects that conducted airdrops, including Blast, have been criticized by the “hair-cutting party” to some extent. The reason for the curses is simple: they did not achieve the expected return.
The landing of the airdrop marks the transition of the airdrop era. After the issuance, the focus should be on Blast’s development. Is the founder, Tieshun, really a scammer? Is Blast just a financial scam?
The airdrop allocates 17% of the total BLAST supply to users, including 7% for Blast Points, 7% for Blast Gold Points, and 3% for the Blur Foundation. The top few individuals who received the airdrop are as follows: 
From the rankings, it is clear that true point holders can receive more tokens and returns. Although the behavior of targeting big holders exists, as mentioned by user X @Christianeth, who deposited $50 million on Blast but only received a $100,000 airdrop.
The criticism of Blast’s airdrop has existed since its mainnet was launched in March. At the time, users who pledged Ethereum on the testnet found that they needed to transfer their assets and pledge points to the mainnet, which required a considerable amount of gas fees, sometimes exceeding 50U. Blast was also criticized for its low contract security. However, these issues did not hinder Blast’s development. This year, the airdrop finally landed, and it was successful in marketing.
Blast differentiates itself as a “Stake Layer2” new narrative, but it is essentially the same as users directly depositing money into Lido and other platforms. However, by using Blast as an intermediary, users can earn airdrop points.
In addition to using airdrop marketing to create high TVL, Blast’s technical implementation itself is also innovative in Ethereum Layer2. While many technical teams continue to optimize their chains, Tieshun directly leveraged OP Stack to quickly establish the Blast chain, and then laid out a comprehensive stack chain. The Blast Foundation announced that it will cooperate with the community to develop desktop and mobile wallets designed specifically for native cryptocurrency users, aiming to provide a better experience than Metamask and accelerate user adoption through incentives. It is clear that Blast is not satisfied with just being an L2 public chain, but hopes to be a comprehensive full-stack chain from chain to wallet to cex.
So far, public chains have had a similar end-to-end user experience. Each chain focuses on optimizing its technology and relies on third parties to complete the rest of the stack. This approach has been effective for public chains, but it has also led to a fragmented and friction-filled ecosystem.
In contrast, Apple uses a full-stack approach, building everything from software to hardware and optimizing the entire stack. This approach has greatly accelerated the evolution to the mobile end and has formed the world’s most valuable mobile ecosystem.
It appears that Blast wants to do what Apple is doing next. Tieshun is a very ambitious developer, and while his NFT market project Blur’s coin price has been falling, perhaps we should pay more attention to his industry innovation and whether it truly comes to fruition.