Author: Nomos Labs Source: mirror
Introduction: Why are we so obsessed with "points" and "Alpha"?
I don't know since when, we seem to have become particularly sensitive to "points" and "Alpha".
The first thing we do when we open an exchange or DEX is no longer to find the next coin that can double, but to check whether the position of the points ranking has changed, and whether there are new Alpha airdrop rules updates.
We began to carefully maintain our on-chain behavior records-even if we don't really know what the points can be exchanged for in the end, and we are not sure how the Alpha airdrop will be distributed. But we still enjoy "swiping points" and "interacting" because we always feel that they will bring unexpected surprises one day.
Gradually, we realized that the so-called "points" are no longer just trading incentives, but a strategic lever for the platform to dispatch assets and control user attention; and "Alpha" is no longer just a vague empty investment qualification, it is becoming the strongest emotional driver in an ecological governance mechanism.
In the past five years, from CEXs such as Binance, OKX, and Bybit to DEXs such as Uniswap, Curve, and zkSync, the gameplay of points and Alpha has continued to evolve: from the initial transaction rebates to today's ecological mechanism with community governance, resource regulation, and traffic screening as the core.
This "user growth game" game, which seems to be composed of Alpha and points, is actually reshaping the relationship between users, platforms, and ecology, and each of us has long been in this game.
In the early crypto ecosystem, whether it is CEX or DEX, points play a very simple role: to increase user trading volume.
The initial trading points were very simple and crude. Exchanges represented by Bitstamp and Bitfinex only provided different degrees of rebates or rate discounts based on the volume of transactions. This design similar to "points" is intuitive and effective. Users can clearly see the direct economic benefits corresponding to each transaction. In form, it is similar to "points". Users can directly see the economic benefits brought by each transaction. But its defects are also obvious: it cannot retain long-term users, let alone form real community stickiness. Users are more like profit-seeking traffic rather than co-builders.
Alpha almost does not exist at this stage, or is just a vague "early investment opportunity", and has not really become a driving force for user growth.
From "trading rebates" to "early investment tickets"
After 2017, with the emergence of Binance Launchpad, CEX linked points with "opportunities" for the first time: users obtained points through staking or holding positions in exchange for the qualification to participate in high-quality project IDOs. This design changed the rules of the game: points are no longer just used to reduce handling fees, but become a stepping stone to approach Alpha projects - you have to deposit assets and stay active in order to exchange for the next wave of potential skyrocketing tickets.
Subsequent platforms such as OKX Jumpstart and Bybit Launchpad have copied this mechanism. The point gameplay has since entered the "opportunity binding stage": it is no longer "giving rewards", but "screening people".
From "screening people" to "empowering governance"
The DEX ecosystem, which is developing in parallel, reshapes the meaning of points in a more radical way. Uniswap's UNI airdrop in 2020 is a real breakthrough in the concepts of points and Alpha. It is not a simple rebate, but an active "incentive + governance" mechanism based on past on-chain behaviors. Users no longer just receive short-term rewards, but directly become participants in protocol governance. Behind the points is the governance and decision-making power of the on-chain community.
This transformation clarifies the strategic connotation of points: from a simple transaction drive to a core gripper of ecological governance and community participation.
After 2021, this trend has deepened further. The veToken points model launched by Curve explicitly allows points to directly determine governance rights and ecosystem revenue distribution; while the new generation of DEX represented by Raydium embeds points into the core process of project launch and ecosystem launch. At this time, points are no longer an "accessory" of the platform, but a basic tool for project launch, community governance, and resource allocation in the Web3 ecosystem.
When we look back at the development history of this points mechanism, we can clearly see its core evolution path:
Today, both CEX and DEX are strategically designing points rules to regulate user attention, asset flow direction, and even the development trend of the entire ecosystem. The competition of the points mechanism is no longer a simple preferential game, but a real ecological war.
From simple "transaction incentives" to deep-level "ecological strategic weapons", the evolution of points shows the profound changes in Web3 user growth strategies. This change is not only the result of user demand, but also the inevitable result of the escalating competition and game between platforms.
If points are the "rules and order" formulated by the platform, then Alpha is the "emotional fuel" for user participation.
Points often have clear ways to obtain and redeem them, but Alpha is driven by a vague but strong expectation, which inspires users to continue to be active in the ecosystem, even if no "rewards" are stated at all.
It is not always bound to the points mechanism, and sometimes even outside the entire incentive system, but it can often create the strongest desire to participate and become the core "non-institutional force" in the platform's growth.
The psychological essence of Alpha: ambiguity creates enthusiasm for participation The charm of Alpha lies in "uncertainty". Precisely because users do not know whether there will be an Alpha airdrop, when it will come, and how to share it, they are more likely to actively participate, interact, and keep their assets active under the expectation of "maybe". This is a typical psychological game: vague hopes are more attractive than clear rules. Blur is the most typical case. Although its early airdrop points mechanism had a ranking list, there were no clear redemption rules, and users were still willing to place orders, interact, and create trading volume crazily-because they believed: as long as I am active, I may be rewarded. This emotional drive constitutes the underlying power of Alpha.
Three mainstream Alpha models and evolutionary logic
(1) Narrative-driven Alpha: Relying on emotional consensus to drive participation
(2) Points-linked Alpha: Using rules to bind expectations
(3) Behavior-capture Alpha: No rules but highly effective
Representative projects: LayerZero, Blur
Mechanism characteristics: There is no formal points system, but user behavior data is secretly recorded and affects the investment qualifications
User behavior: "Self-designed behavior trajectory" around interaction, but the input-output ratio cannot be determined
Mechanism characteristics: Alpha is clearly bound to points, and points can be consumed to exchange for TGE quotas or airdrop qualifications
User behavior: actions centered around point tasks, high concentration of assets and behaviors, and high competition
Representative projects: zkSync, StarkNet, Scroll
Mechanism characteristics: There is no point system, and only rumors of "possible airdrops" are used to stimulate user on-chain interactions
User behavior: interact with the entire ecosystem, register for all projects, and the behavior is extremely decentralized but highly sustainable
Alpha Gaming risks: overstimulation and behavioral alienation
Although the ambiguity of Alpha can stimulate enthusiasm, it is also easy to create problems such as short-term arbitrage and invalid volume.
Blur's initial order-brushing problem, zkSync's large number of low-quality interactions, and LayerZero's accusation of excessive guidance of "interaction farms" all expose a core problem:
When Alpha is no longer scarce and becomes the norm of "as long as there is interaction", it loses its screening value and pollutes the ecosystem.
Therefore, the platform began to try to use the combination mechanism of "points + Alpha" for more refined control.
Alpha and points: a hybrid mechanism of co-evolution
A single mechanism is no longer sufficient to meet the needs of ecological management. Therefore, platforms began to explore the "dual-track drive":
Mechanism Advantages Risks Best Mode of Action Points Clear rules, easy to layer incentives Easy to be brushed and form involution As the basic structure and screening threshold Alpha stimulates enthusiasm and strengthens user participation Expectations are unstable and induce abuse of interaction As an additional reward and emotional driver
The goals of the hybrid mechanism are:
Use points to "regulate behavioral paths" and avoid systematic abuse;
Use Alpha to "create vague expectations" and stimulate long-term participation enthusiasm.
The Binance Alpha Points model adopts this strategy:
Set points acquisition rules and consumption thresholds (institutional control);
Introduce lucky mechanisms and special conditions (emotional lottery);
And control the release rhythm and difficulty in each Alpha project to achieve the dual goals of traffic management and user screening.
Alpha's new function: Become a "pledge of allegiance" for on-chain narrative and ecological identity
Alpha's evolutionary path is gradually changing from "reward" to "identity symbol".
In ecosystems such as zkSync and LayerZero, users do not just interact for short-term airdrops, but hope to be identified as "ecosystem co-builders" or "long-term participants." Alpha begins to become an indirect credential for on-chain reputation and governance rights.
Blur launched a points consumption mechanism after the airdrop: encouraging long-term activity rather than one-time rush to the top of the list
Binance Alpha sets points retention thresholds and random conditions: screening loyal rather than arbitrage users
LayerZero began to identify "real interaction paths" and set up a behavioral anti-cheating system
These changes point to a trend together:
Alpha is becoming the most differentiated and symbolic "value distribution logic" in the on-chain ecosystem.
The growth mechanism of the Web3 world is entering a "dual track drive" stage: the institutional points system and the fuzzy Alpha rewards are beginning to be consciously combined to form a strategic tool that runs through user acquisition, behavior guidance, asset precipitation and rhythm management.
In the past, points and Alpha were two parallel worlds: one was a clear rule and quantifiable participation structure; the other was to mobilize the user's subjective imagination with vague and uncertain expectations. But today, they are no longer separated, but leverage each other to build a new user behavior operating system.
Binance was the first to realize this. In its Alpha Points mechanism, the rules for obtaining points are designed to be extremely sophisticated: users gain points through trading, holding positions, and participating in activities; at the same time, the system sets different levels of qualification thresholds in exchange for priority subscription rights or airdrop qualifications for specific TGE projects. However, what really drives users to "score points" crazily is not the direct use of these points, but the suspenseful Alpha behind it - that is, if you score enough points, you may get the airdrop, but you may also miss it.
This fuzzy boundary design has greatly stimulated users' enthusiasm for participation. For example, in the DOOD airdrop, users with more than 168 points are directly qualified, while users with 129 to 167 points need to rely on the UID tail number to draw a lottery. This subtle "fuzzy interval" allows a large number of users to actively increase interactions and improve scores to avoid falling into the risk zone of "being marginalized".
The core of this mechanism is: points provide structure, Alpha provides suspense; points are "what I have done", Alpha is "maybe there will be results"; points are bound to rules, Alpha mobilizes psychology. When the two are combined, the platform gains multiple regulatory capabilities over user attention, time, behavior and asset flow paths.
This structure not only optimizes the logic of user stratification and screening, but also greatly improves the platform's ability to control the rhythm within the ecosystem. Take Blur as an example. In its early days, it did not give any points redemption rules, but through means such as point rankings and behavior-linked scoring systems, it successfully created an emotional guidance of "efforts will be seen", thereby promoting users to participate continuously, frequently and at a high cost.
This approach of using "fuzzy Alpha" as the core of incentive is actually a deep use of user psychology: when the reward rules are opaque, users will invest more, because everyone believes "maybe I can be selected". The existence of points builds a positive feedback framework of "I am doing the right thing" for this ambiguity:
Points control behavior path: clarify incentive rules, guide users to lock assets and participate in the long term;
Alpha provides emotional drive: create uncertainty, stimulate users to brush points and increase stickiness;
Fusion point: use the combination of "points snapshot + Alpha airdrop + consumption mechanism" to regulate the rhythm and ecological load.
Finally, user behavior also changes accordingly. They no longer act only for "exchange of rewards", but participate in order to "leave traces" and be recognized by the system. They build "points identity" on the platform and bet on the realization of Alpha in the future. This "participation is candidate" mechanism transforms users from short-term actors to long-term asset co-builders.
It is this silent binding that the platform hopes for.
After the dual-track mechanism of Alpha × points has become increasingly mature, another essential trend has begun to surface: the mechanism boundaries of CEX and DEX are rapidly blurring, and they are borrowing from each other, learning from each other, and gradually merging. In the past, we regarded the two as opposing paradigms of "centralization vs. decentralization", but now, they are all moving towards the same goal-building a more stable user participation system and ecological collaboration mechanism.
First, CEX is leaning towards the governance concept of DEX. Platforms such as Binance, OKX, and Gate are no longer satisfied with the traditional task center + rebate points design, and have begun to introduce concepts such as on-chain behavior snapshots, on-chain wallet binding, and task structure stratification, and build user levels and points growth paths through these on-chain interaction traces. For example, Binance introduced the "Web3 wallet binding + on-chain task participation" rule in Alpha Points, which is essentially to identify "trusted users" through on-chain behavior and create a DEX-style "reputation distribution".
At the same time, these platforms have gradually added light governance modules, such as user voting for listing (such as Gate Startup), event voting (such as OKX voting list) and other mechanisms, and began to build a path of "user consensus → behavior value", which essentially borrowed the governance participation structure of DEX.
At the same time, DEX is also quietly moving closer to CEX. New generation DEXs such as Uniswap, PancakeSwap, Jupiter, and Velodrome have begun to introduce institutionalized operation modules such as point systems, task structures, phased airdrops, ranking mechanisms, and periodic liquidations.
Jupiter's LFG system is a typical "ranking + points reset + cycle" CEX operation model. Velodrome uses veNFT and bribe mechanisms to implement a combination strategy of governance voting and incentive distribution, building a programmable points path of "user behavior + governance incentives". Uniswap is promoting the cross-protocol structure of "on-chain identity + multi-chain points", and is constantly evolving in terms of operational accuracy.
More importantly, user behavior is also changing in the integration of the two types of platforms.
They no longer simply "choose a platform", but "choose a mechanism": whether there are reasonable points rules, whether vague but real Alpha rewards are provided, and whether there are recognizable identity tracks. The unit of platform competition is no longer "number of users", but "mechanism design capability" - whoever can build a smoother incentive structure and accumulate higher-quality user paths will have a better chance of winning the future ecological dominance.
Points and Alpha are becoming the "mechanism language" in this competition.
The past battle for traffic is transforming into a battle for mechanism design, and platform governance, community control, and user stickiness are moving towards the next stage of deep structuring through this integration.
We used to think that points were a promotional prop, giving users some benefits, attracting new users, and stabilizing transaction volume, and the task was completed. But looking back now, this understanding is too shallow.
In today's Web3 world, the gameplay of points and Alpha is no longer a superficial incentive structure, but has become an interface for the game of cognition and power between the platform and users.
On the one hand, the platform uses the points system to finely set the user's behavior track - what is worth doing, when to do it, and how much to do to be considered "qualified"; on the other hand, it uses the vague Alpha mechanism to create "maybe" expectations and continue to arouse your emotions for participation.
This set of mechanisms is very clever, because it does not require you to know what you will get at the moment, but only requires you to believe: it is worth staying.
And just as this narrative logic is gradually taking shape, new changes are brewing.
We are standing at a crossroads of "mechanism fusion → mechanism transition". The next game will no longer be just "what you did", but what traces you left in whose system.
In the future, points will probably no longer be as simple as "transaction volume × weight", but will be composed of multiple variables:
Which chains have you interacted with?
How many ecosystems have you participated in the governance of?
Do you have a complete and coherent set of on-chain behavior tracks?
Are you doing a ranking task or actual participation?
In other words, points are not just "evidence of behavior", but a way for the ecosystem to understand your value.
And this understanding will no longer be limited to a single platform.
We can already see some signs:
zkSync's airdrop introduced the "average asset retention time" when calculating interactions; LayerZero's points system has long secretly recorded the chains and depths you participate in; "on-chain identity protocols" such as Sismo and Gitcoin Passport have begun to be adopted on multiple platforms, becoming your ID card for "whether you are a real user."
Perhaps in the near future, the points of different platforms will no longer compete with each other, but form a "trust network" that is mutually recognized across ecosystems: if you have interacted on LayerZero, zkSync will reduce the threshold for you; if you have participated in the governance of a DAO, Blur may be willing to directly give you a whitelist.
At that time, we will not be faced with "how many points I get", but "how the entire Web3 sees me."
On the other hand, the platforms are also getting nervous.
While ambiguity brings high participation, regulatory uncertainty is also approaching:
Are points assets? Does Alpha constitute disguised financing? If the purpose of a points system is to eventually airdrop tokens to users, does it need to publicly disclose the distribution logic? Are there compliance risks involved?
So you will see that more and more platforms are becoming "vague and restrained": they don't give you a very clear formula, they don't directly tell you "what you can exchange for a few points", everything is just "reference", and everything is subject to "official follow-up notification".
It seems to be "keeping mystery", but in fact it is "avoiding responsibility".
And the end point of this ambiguity war is likely to be: users are getting smarter and platforms are getting more cautious.
Therefore, the truly effective mechanism will no longer be "stimulating interaction", but designing a participation structure that makes users willing to stay and worth being recognized. It is not about making people score points, but about being willing to build together.
This mechanism is not just an operating method, but the ecological order itself.
Points seem to be rewards, but in fact they are a record of "you have participated" time and time again.
Alpha seems to be an airdrop, but in fact it is a signal that "you are seen".
Looking back at the entire evolution process, from Bitfinex's rebate system to Binance's Launchpad, from Uniswap's UNI airdrop to Curve's veToken decision-making power, and then to LayerZero, Jupiter, and zkSync's user identification algorithms, we can see clearly:
Users are not retained by incentives, but by mechanism recognition.
And we have long evolved from "fleecing party" to "candidates". We participate in interactions not for short-term gains, but to build an identity, an image that can be seen by the ecosystem.
We are not just brushing points, but the kind of people we are willing to be. We are not just betting on Alpha, but we believe that a certain mechanism is worth participating in and worth building together.
And the battlefield between platforms has also changed from "who has more airdrops" to "whose system can retain people." From the competition for traffic to the competition for structure. From the game of incentives to the construction of identity. From the game of points to the design of order.
We will eventually forget how many points we have and what Alpha has given us.
But we will remember: which platform has truly seen me.
The decline in newcomer developers can be attributed to fewer new individuals venturing into crypto, which is likely a response to the bearish market conditions currently plaguing the crypto markets.
DavinThis revelation has sparked concern and caution among investors, primarily due to the ongoing challenges posed by inflation and market volatility. Despite these substantial unrealised losses, the bank still manages to maintain high-profit margins thanks to its attractive interest rates.
JasperIn an awe-inspiring feat of technology and gaming fusion, a skilled Pokémon Red player has leveraged the potent capabilities of Reinforcement Learning to teach artificial intelligence (AI) to conquer the captivating world of Pokémon. In a digital age marked by constant advancement, the convergence of AI and video games is a natural progression. AI has already showcased its creative talents in art and music, and now it embarks on the quest to become a gaming maestro.
JoyThe digital age has armed us with both the tools of deception and the tools of truth but the war against fake news is likely to be a continuous struggle.
CatherineUS Lawmakers pressure the White House on cracking down the use of crypto for illicit purposes after Hamas attack.
Hui XinIsraeli authorities have taken strong measures to shut down cryptocurrency accounts and seize substantial digital assets to cut off financial ties between the crypto markets and Hamas, as a response to the group's attacks on Israel
JixuThe Shanghai Municipal Government has unveiled a comprehensive plan, titled the "Shanghai City Action Plan for Advancing New Infrastructure Construction (2023-2026)". This initiative seeks to revolutionise the city's infrastructure and services by harnessing the potential of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, 5G, and digital twins.
JoyIn March, the investment company, which operates as an affiliate of Digital Wave Finance (DWF), entered the Orbs ecosystem through a token purchase of up to $10 million.
DavinAptos, a blockchain network, encountered a significant outage lasting over five hours on October 18, 2023, as it celebrated its one-year anniversary.
JasperA survey found that 41% of respondents would prefer not to hold virtual assets, and only 20% want to hold virtual assets in the future
Clement