2026-01-22 15:37:09

Warden Protocol's operations are indeed confusing. On one hand, they require registration and payment, while on the other hand, they are conducting anti-witch detection, which doesn't make much sense.

From a business perspective, based on the official claim of 20 million active users, even if only 10% of users are willing to pay for registration, it can generate a revenue in the hundreds of thousands. This scale is comparable to the single-round funding amount of some projects, which to some extent is equivalent to the profit scale of a small IPO.

With the airdrop expectations not yet confirmed, charging registration fees now makes it difficult for users to judge whether participation is worthwhile. Either the project team has enough profit margin and doesn't care about conversion rates, or they are maximizing early revenue. In any case, this increases the participation cost for participants.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

14 Likes

Reward
14
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GasFeeTherapist

· 8h ago

Paid anti-witch, this sneaky move is really brilliant. Who came up with it? Basically, it's just nakedly cutting leeks, and there's no sign of airdrops. I really can't figure it out—are project teams these days all so short on money?

View OriginalReply0

ContractTester

· 8h ago

Paid anti-witch, this trick is really brilliant, who came up with it for them

View OriginalReply0

DaoResearcher

· 8h ago

Based on on-chain data and the historical performance of governance proposals, this dual mechanism of paid registration + anti-witching is actually a classic case of incentive incompatibility. Paid registration essentially involves market segmentation, while anti-witching requires account diversification — a contradiction. This is the design flaw I mentioned from the perspective of Token economics. A revenue of 6 million sounds substantial, but Vitalik has long argued that short-term arbitrage can only sustain for about half a year, and in the long run, it will inevitably damage ecological trust. If the airdrop expectations are unknown, then cut early — either there is enough profit margin, or they are just bleeding heavily. Regardless of which assumption holds, for us participants, it’s a negative-sum game.

View OriginalReply0

orphaned_block

· 8h ago

Another scam to fleece retail investors, paying for anti-witchcraft services made me laugh to death.

View OriginalReply0

TrustlessMaximalist

· 8h ago

Here comes the usual pump and dump, registration fees plus anti-witchcraft—this combo is unbeatable.

View OriginalReply0

ChainMemeDealer

· 8h ago

Here's the translation to en-US: "Another new trick to harvest retail investors, huh? Paid registration plus Sybil resistance - they're trying to squeeze every last drop from users. Airdrops are nowhere in sight yet they dare to charge upfront. Looks like their funding isn't solid enough. This playbook screams that the project is bleeding early supporters dry. Sure, it might feel good, but we shouldn't be paying for this.

View OriginalReply0