#数字资产动态追踪 New regulations have just been implemented, and the participation pattern across the entire ecosystem is quietly changing.

From a cost structure perspective, there are several common strategies in the market. The most aggressive is the 2+17 plan, where a monthly investment of around $240 can reach 285 points, matching the core reward tier. Steady players tend to prefer the 2+16 plan, with a monthly investment of about $100 to consistently earn 270 points. However, the studio's favorite is actually the 2+15 configuration — with a $50 monthly cost, it can lock in 255 points, making it highly cost-effective. There are also more budget-friendly options like the 2+14 (monthly investment of $23 to earn 16 points) and the 1+15 plan (extremely cost-effective, especially suitable for bulk account creation).

Assuming the threshold is set at 220 points, and estimating a single airdrop at $40, the math becomes quite interesting. The 285-point configuration requires 6 claims to complete a cycle, earning about $300; the 270-point setup requires 4 claims to earn $110; the 255-point setup also requires 4 claims but earns $150; the 240-point configuration needs 2 claims to earn $80; the 1+15 setup, with 2 claims, yields about $45 profit (the maximum per account could even reach $5350).

The key question is — whether the final threshold is set at 220 or 240 points, resource-rich studios are not worried at all. Instead, they might gradually push ordinary retail investors out. On the surface, the new regulations seem stricter, adding a point deduction mechanism for claims, but high-score rewards are likely to be monopolized by capital-intensive players, making it increasingly difficult for retail investors to achieve high scores.

In the long run, if each airdrop remains stable at $40, studios will have enough motivation to push the threshold above 240 points, further squeezing the earning space for retail investors. Want to casually grab some rewards? Honestly, the opportunity is gradually shrinking.

The original intention of the rules might have been to promote fairness, but in practice, they often evolve into a situation where "who controls the resources eats alone." Project teams should pay more attention to balancing point inflation and genuine ecosystem participation, so that a good set of rules doesn't end up completely distorted.