Camp Network Airdrop Sparks Backlash: From Hype to Disappointment

Over 6 million wallets joined Camp Network’s testnet, but only about 40,000 addresses qualified for the airdrop.

A $10 registration fee, later canceled after backlash, damaged user trust and sparked criticism.

Strict KYC rules and locked token rewards turned the airdrop into frustration instead of celebration.

THE CONTROVERSIAL AIRDROP

Over the summer, Camp Network tried to capture attention with an ambitious airdrop campaign. The scale was huge—over six million wallets interacted with its testnet. Yet when the dust settled, only about forty thousand addresses qualified. For the majority, the effort turned into disappointment. They had played the game, but found themselves locked out of the reward.

What should have been a marketing win instead became a source of anger. The campaign was supposed to reward early adopters and build goodwill. Instead, it created frustration, with most participants feeling excluded from the very process they helped drive. The promise of easy access had transformed into the reality of scarcity.

THE PAYWALL PROBLEM

Even the few who made it through the filter found new barriers. To claim their rewards, users had to pay a registration fee—about 0.0025 ETH, roughly ten dollars. The logic was never clearly explained. To many, it felt like a bait-and-switch: a free airdrop that required a toll. Backlash was immediate. Social media filled with criticism, and within hours, the project was forced to roll back the fee and promise refunds.

But the damage was already done. The impression was clear: participation came at a cost, both in money and in trust. An airdrop designed to reward loyalty had instead planted seeds of doubt. Even after the refund, many questioned the project’s intentions and long-term credibility.

THE KYC BARRIER

Another point of contention was identity verification. Camp Network demanded strict KYC. It required camera checks, rejected VPN users, and excluded participants from several jurisdictions altogether. What looked like compliance to some looked like exclusion to others. For a global community used to pseudonymity, the requirement felt excessive. Many who had supported the network early found themselves barred from the process entirely.

In the world of open networks, such limits sting. Airdrops are supposed to be community-building moments. Here, they became dividing lines, splitting the audience between those who could pass and those who could not. The backlash was not just about paperwork—it was about a sense of betrayal.

THE LOCKED REWARD

Even for those who cleared every hurdle, the prize itself proved underwhelming. Only twenty percent of tokens were unlocked at launch. The rest remained locked, trickling out over time. Worse still, users needed CAMP tokens to pay gas fees for claiming. That meant buying tokens on exchanges first. But on some venues, withdrawals were not yet open. Holders were stuck in a loop: qualified for rewards, but unable to access them.

The structure turned what should have been a celebration into a maze of restrictions. Instead of instant gratification, users faced wait times, additional purchases, and the risk of being left stranded if infrastructure failed to keep pace.

CONCLUSION

Camp Network’s airdrop was meant to be a grand entrance. Instead, it highlighted the dangers of over-engineering incentives. Too few qualified, too many faced hidden costs, and too much remained locked behind compliance and technical barriers. The project’s quick reversal on fees showed it could respond under pressure, but the episode left scars.

In crypto, trust is fragile. Communities expect openness, fairness, and ease. When those expectations are broken, even the promise of free tokens cannot repair the damage quickly. Camp Network may continue to build, but its airdrop will be remembered less as a gift and more as a warning of how not to engage early believers.

〈Camp Network Airdrop Sparks Backlash: From Hype to Disappointment〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。