Sure, here’s a creatively rephrased version of the article:
—
**Original Content | Odaily Star Daily**
**Author | How**
Recently, LayerZero and various Layer 2 projects have launched fierce attacks against the “fluffy” community. Looking at the setting of rules and decision-making authority, it seems unevenly matched. The introduction of various anti-witch policies targeting most eligible airdrop addresses suspected of “hoarding” has sparked conflicts between two once like-minded groups.
The situation escalated until Binance founder He Yi spoke about the rise and fall of the crypto sphere, stating, “Today, the market has indeed changed again. The internecine warfare between ‘fluffy’ studios and L2 projects has turned into a farce; the era of ‘fluffing’ may be coming to an end.” This shifted the focus of the crypto world towards these two factions.
From an external perspective, projects implementing anti-witch mechanisms to curb ‘fluffy’ studios from manipulating airdrops while the studios continuously increase costs to meet these anti-witch standards suggest a seemingly irreconcilable conflict between project teams and ‘fluffy’ studios. But is this really the case?
Odaily Star Daily conducted an anonymous interview with the founder of a ‘fluffy’ studio, referred to as LM, revealing fascinating untold stories behind these studios and project teams. The concept of ‘fluffing’ studios emerged alongside KOLs.
The term “fluffing” actually originated quite early. With institutional capital entering the scene, projects no longer needed to conduct public token financing through IEOs and similar methods. Institutions replaced the public in investing in early-stage projects, thereby ensuring their survival and continued development. The public’s involvement in projects earned them eligibility for airdropped tokens.
Simultaneously, the rising value of UniSwap’s airdropped tokens led to subsequent projects eagerly engaging in multi-address interactions, giving birth to the verb “fluffing.”
Regarding the motivation behind ‘fluffing,’ LM explained, “In the early days, although I participated in airdrops like UniSwap, I didn’t think it could yield high returns. It wasn’t until the peak of the last bull market, when the NFT sector was booming, that I met some well-known KOLs who were among the earliest practitioners of ‘fluffing.’ During the Aptos airdrop, each of them received at least several hundred thousand USDT. That’s when I truly realized the value of ‘fluffing.’ My first ‘fluffing’ project was Blur because the NFT sector was hot at the time. The airdrop rule was simply to trade on that platform. However, lacking experience, I made some mistakes and only made around 2000 USDT in profit.”
So how did LM truly transition into organizing ‘fluffing’ operations? LM shared, “I began establishing ‘fluffing’ studios when L2 solutions started gaining traction. At that time, everyone was ‘fluffing’ zk sync, Starknet, and other Layer 2 projects across the entire network. I realized the need to scale up by forming a studio because one person’s time and energy are limited. In fact, similar ‘fluffing’ studios had been established long before.”
According to LM, ‘fluffing’ studios began to emerge gradually in the latter stages of the previous bull market and have since matured. Key KOLs played a pivotal role in this business.
Discussing the current operations of LM’s studio, he mentioned, “Currently, my studio has around 7 full-time employees, plus approximately 20 interns and remote workers. The business is divided into three main sectors: KOL development, community management, and ‘fluffing’ operations.”
LM elaborated on KOL development, clarifying that it doesn’t aim solely at monetizing these individuals like traditional MCN companies. Instead, it provides them a platform for learning and networking. Most of these KOLs are blockchain-related university students who possess considerable Web3 knowledge and aim to develop careers in the blockchain industry. LM hopes to prepare them with education so they can join Web3 companies after graduation, thereby supplying talent to the Web3 ecosystem. Moreover, starting their journey at his studio could potentially benefit LM personally as they gain recognition in relevant companies later on.
Regarding community management, LM emphasized its role in content curation services. While he didn’t delve deeply into specifics, community management provides diversity in project information, enhancing the operational flexibility of ‘fluffing’ studios.
As for the core business—’fluffing’—LM explained, “In terms of ‘fluffing,’ we primarily engage in internal ‘fluffing’ operations and semi-external activities. Internal operations focus on interacting meticulously with current project tokens without using scripts for mass interaction. Instead, we employ a more manual approach to ensure each address receives the appropriate airdropped tokens. Semi-external operations cater more to interns and university students, offering ‘fluffing’ information for mutual exchange based on their varying interests, such as technical research related to node deployment or pure ‘fluffing.'”
When asked about the pitfalls of scripted interactions, LM pointed out, “The reason we avoid scripted ‘fluffing’ is mainly due to their instability. Especially in transactions, script bots are prone to errors. Although rare, a single occurrence can lead to irreparable losses. For instance, on NFT platforms, scripts might inadvertently sell high-value NFTs at drastically reduced prices. Furthermore, while scripted ‘fluffing’ may suit costless testnet interactions, it often results in duplicity. Consequently, when project teams compile their airdrop lists, most are restricted under anti-witch rules targeting scripted transactions.”
Regarding the daily tools and account maintenance of ‘fluffing’ studios, LM mentioned, “They are not vastly different from everyday tools used by everyone, such as fingerprint browsers or AI tools like ChatGPT, which enhance work efficiency. In terms of community account maintenance, it’s crucial not to log into multiple accounts from the same IP or allow multiple individuals to access the same account, preventing them from being flagged as bot accounts.”
When asked about handling customer commissions, LM said, “We do receive such orders, although infrequently. This is mainly because the profits are not high, and we lack a large number of accounts to service them. However, other studios are indeed engaged in related businesses, such as Starknet airdrops or cases involving high-profile KOLs absconding with 20 million tokens worth tens of millions.”
According to LM, his studio’s business extends beyond ‘fluffing,’ encompassing KOL development and community management, showcasing the evolution of ‘fluffing’ studios from a singular focus to diversified operations.
**Competitive Cooperation between ‘Fluffing’ Studios and Project Teams**
In this interview, the focus was primarily on exploring the relationship between ‘fluffing’ studios and project teams with LM, aiming to uncover whether there are beneficial ties between them. The candid responses from LM shed light on the relationship between project teams and ‘fluffing’ studios.
**Project Teams’ Under-the-Table Operations: Airdrops No Longer Bias Survivors**
When discussing the relationship between project teams and ‘fluffing’ studios, LM vividly likened it to the practice of inflating sales on the Taobao platform in Web2: “I believe ‘fluffing’ studios and project teams are more akin to inflating sales of goods on Taobao. MerchantsIn order to get their products to rank at the top of searches, businesses place relevant incentives on brushing platforms to attract people to conduct brushing. This is a means of attracting users at the data level. However, while Taobao’s brushing is initiated by businesses looking for relevant individuals to carry out operations, the author now wonders whether Web3’s project parties also actively seek out brushing studios for airdrop interactions and what they can offer in return. LM says, “This depends on the size of the project. Larger projects will not proactively seek brushing studios to carry out interactions because they are not lacking in traffic. Everyone is brushing. On the other hand, smaller projects need the cooperation of brushing studios because only with good data can they have a chance to be listed on an exchange. Generally, these project parties will not provide actual incentives to brushing studios, but they will inform us of the anti-witch rules in advance. With the anti-witch rules in place, we have effectively received token rewards.”
When asked about the details of the cooperation between project parties and brushing studios, LM says, “Brushing is generally divided into two types, one with costs and the other without. Generally, most of the project parties that find us are of the latter type. The no-cost type varies depending on the size of the project, and brushing studios are found more often for smaller projects on test networks. This allows us to conduct airdrop brushing in advance, knowing the anti-witch rules, as the project parties want the test network data to look good and thus increase their visibility. As for larger projects, they rarely seek us out. Instead, we are the ones who approach them to obtain the anti-witch rules. However, there are also some well-known projects that, when listing on well-known exchanges, fall short of a certain trading volume and will commission large brushing studios to help increase trading volume.”
Regarding the circulating news about project parties collaborating with brushing studios to return project tokens, LM says, “At present, my studio has not received related business, but others in the same industry have received similar business. In fact, this method is essentially a problem with the exit mechanism of the project parties. As the majority of project parties currently have a certain release period for their reserved tokens, and the listing rules of relevant exchanges also explicitly require teams not to ‘dump’ the tokens, to prevent negative impact, relevant exchanges or market makers may help sell them.”
“But another scenario is that project parties are focusing on airdrops because they are the ones who determine the airdrop rules. So, if they include some of their own addresses in the rules, this is a very easy and normal occurrence. And it does not necessarily need to cooperate with brushing studios, as project parties themselves can meet these requirements. For example, in the case of GameFi projects, restrictions based on levels, login times, etc., are easier to implement. For project parties, as long as they can place active users within the airdrop criteria, segregating those who are brushing, it would not be detrimental to the subsequent development of the project. In this way, they can gain revenue while ensuring that core users are not lost. Presumably, most project parties would adopt this approach.” The anti-witch rules of the project parties or the bragging of their “clean” data are simply a means of self-promotion.
Previously, Layerzero’s anti-witch rules seemed to create an adversarial relationship between brushing studios and commissioned clients, reporting would result in more tokens. What is your view on this matter and that of your colleagues?
LM did not directly answer, but instead introduced the project’s required clients from the perspective of the project parties. He divides the clients’ investment of funds into three structures: Head fund investment: accounts for approximately 10% of the total investment. This part is contributed by a small number of large fund investors, whose funds are often greater than the total funds of the remaining 90%. For example, a person may invest 100 bitcoins or 1000 ethers. Middle fund investment: accounts for approximately 30% of the total investment. This part of the funds comes from medium-sized investors who are typically core users of the project. For example, a user may stake 0.1 to 2.2 bitcoins. Tail fund investment: This part of the funds comes from a large number of small investors. Each investor may only invest 0.0001 bitcoins.
For the project parties, how to handle investors of different levels is a key issue. Project parties can choose whether to absorb all investors or only a certain number of them. This is a strategic choice they have to make.
In general, a project party hopes to attract as much capital as possible to enhance the overall strength and risk resistance of the project. This means that they need to design mechanisms that attract investors of different levels and ensure that these mechanisms can effectively operate to achieve the project’s long-term and beneficial development.
In conclusion, LM’s analysis states, “Layerzero’s anti-witch measures are more of a marketing tactic to promote the project and show that there are no studios, only real users.”
It must be said that LM’s analysis is to a certain extent very reasonable, as the existence of studios being able to report commissioned clients is much less frequent compared to the quantity of studios “self-brushing”.
Furthermore, LM does not believe that there is an adversarial relationship between brushing studios and project parties. He says, “The presence of brushing studios provides these projects with effective real user data. As previously mentioned, such phenomena were very common in the Web2 era, such as brushing, transactions, and advertising on Taobao. In the advertising industry, there is a saying, ‘You never know which 70% of the money you invest is wasted, but you never know which 70%’. Therefore, we can view brushing as a form of promotional reward given to users by project parties. Every project needs this kind of promotional reward, and currently, this is the best solution. This is not only a phenomenon in our industry but also in other industries.”
“I believe that brushing is a long-term and sustainable business. Every brushing studio brings in hundreds of valid users, and as long as they follow the rules to participate in the project, it cannot simply be viewed as brushing behavior but rather as providing user data for the project.”
“Secondly, for the initial token release methods of the project, the highest priority is given to superstar head fund investors (such as a16z), followed by new mineable coins from large exchanges or related Launchpools. After that comes the shares for valid users, and finally, the release of small capital investments. For the project parties, distributing tokens to users not only helps with promotion but also leads to a high ROI. Therefore, brushing studios can continue to grow because project parties continue to release new projects, and every project needs these users.”
“Finally, a predecessor in the brushing business once said, ‘The brushing business is actually a 1.5-level market between the primary market and the secondary market’, which means that brushing behavior does not need to communicate with the project. As long as the project needs to release tokens, there will be token generation rules, and as long as the brushers know these rules, there will inevitably be large-scale brushing activities, and even exchanges will open pre-market trading to this group of people.”
LM’s standpoint is to express the perspective of brushing studios. From the perspective of business operations, the cooperation between project parties and brushing studios is a reasonable business practice. Project parties set the rules, and brushing studios participate within the rules, and both are cooperating with each other while meeting their own interests. However, from the perspective of the average user, the collaboration between these two parties damages the anticipated outcome of the earlier airdrop. Nevertheless, when it comes down to it, Web3 is also a commercial activity, and there will inevitably be “friction” wherever there are benefits.
