Recently, the highly anticipated Ethereum Layer 2 network native token Blast (BLAST) was finally launched, and its price soared 40% in just a few days. According to CoinMarketCap data, the price of BLAST rose from $0.02 at the time of issuance to $0.0281, showing the market's high attention to this new token. Equally exciting is that Coinbase also quickly announced support for BLAST trading, injecting more liquidity into the token.
However, with the debut of BLAST and its strong initial performance, the problems behind it have gradually surfaced. High expectations, unfair airdrop distribution, user complaints and lack of platform functions are gradually revealing the actual challenges of BLAST.
Let’s delve deeper into these questions and uncover the real story behind BLAST’s glamour.
The short-term surge in BLAST tokens still cannot cover up a series of problems, and users are disappointed
BLAST tokens have performed well since their launch, attracting a lot of attention from investors. Since its launch, the price of BLAST has risen from $0.02 to $0.0281, a 40% increase in just a few days, with a fully diluted value (FDV) of $2 billion. This performance far exceeds other high-profile airdrop projects that were listed during the same period, such as Ethereum Layer 2 network zkSync and cross-chain interoperability LayerZero, which fell 46% and 43% respectively.
According to CoinMarketCap data, BLAST's trading volume after its launch reached $370 million, its market value exceeded $480 million, and its FDV exceeded $2.8 billion. Such market performance has undoubtedly sparked widespread discussion. However, behind the glamorous data, the BLAST project also faces some problems and doubts.
The actual implementation of the BLAST airdrop plan has caused dissatisfaction among some users. This airdrop released 17% of the total supply, of which 7% was allocated to users who bridged Ethereum or US dollars on the Blast network, another 7% was allocated to users who contributed to DApps, and 3% was allocated to the Blur Foundation for future community airdrops. However, this allocation method has not been generally recognized by all users. For example, Christian, a partner at NextGen Digital Venture, posted on the X platform that he deposited more than 50 million US dollars on BLAST, but only received an airdrop of 100,000 US dollars, expressing his dissatisfaction with the BLAST project.
After BLAST went online, the market fluctuated greatly, and the expectations of some users were not met. According to statistics, BLAST tokens suffered a large-scale sell-off in a short period of time, causing the price to fall below $0.02 at one point, causing the value of the 14 billion token pool originally reserved for users as rewards to fall to $289 million. Such market performance disappointed some DeFi users.
In addition, BLAST's airdrop event also attracted a large number of scammers. According to a report from the crypto security service Scam Sniffer, a user lost more than $217,000 after signing multiple phishing signatures. Such incidents not only affect the interests of users, but also have a certain impact on BLAST's reputation.
Overall, despite BLAST’s initial success in the market, the hidden concerns still exist. From dissatisfaction with airdrop allocation to market volatility and security issues, the challenges BLAST needs to face and solve are still huge.
Problem review: airdrop activities lack fairness, coin price stability is poor, and hacker theft activities are frequent
Although BLAST has achieved some market success in its early stages, the criticisms that followed cannot be ignored. These criticisms come from multiple sources, each of which reveals specific problems and challenges in BLAST's actual operations.
The first is the opacity of the airdrop mechanism and the unfair distribution. Many users said that there are many opaque aspects in the actual operation of BLAST's airdrop plan. Some users believe that their operations on the network have not received the due rewards. In particular, the treatment of large users is controversial. For example, Christian, a partner at NextGen Digital Venture, said that depositing more than 50 million US dollars on BLAST but only receiving an airdrop of 100,000 US dollars, such a distribution method has made many users question the fairness and transparency of BLAST.
Secondly, although BLAST's market performance has seen a short-term rise, its long-term stability is questioned. BLAST tokens experienced large price fluctuations after going online. After a short period of time, the price rose from $0.02 to $0.0281, and then fell below $0.02 due to a large-scale sell-off. This volatility caused some users to face losses after buying at high prices, which led to dissatisfaction. According to data from Odaily Planet Daily, the decline in BLAST prices caused the value of the 14 billion token pool dedicated to rewards to fall to $289 million, which was much lower than users expected.
In addition, the fraud incidents that occurred during the BLAST airdrop also had a negative impact on the project. Since airdrop activities usually require users to connect their wallets and sign transactions, this provides an opportunity for scammers. The crypto security service Scam Sniffer reported that a user lost more than $217,000 after signing multiple phishing signatures. Such incidents not only harmed the interests of users, but also had an impact on BLAST's reputation, causing users to doubt the security of the project.
In addition, BLAST's technical and functional issues have also raised questions. Although BLAST, as an Ethereum Layer 2 network, claims to provide higher transaction speeds and lower transaction fees, some users have found that its functions have not achieved the expected results in actual use. For example, some users reported that when performing bridge operations, ETH needs to be locked for several months, which limits liquidity.
In general, the criticisms BLAST has encountered mainly focus on the opacity and unfair distribution of the airdrop mechanism, excessive market volatility, frequent security issues, and technology and functions that do not meet expectations. These problems not only affect the user experience and confidence, but also bring many challenges to the future development of BLAST.
BLAST has been questioned before its launch, and its future trend needs to be continuously observed
The launch of BLAST tokens has attracted widespread attention from the market, but it has also been accompanied by a flood of criticism. In fact, this is not the first time BLAST has faced such a situation. In many previous incidents, BLAST has also encountered similar doubts and criticisms.
As early as November 2023, BLAST caused widespread discussion and doubts when it launched its Developer Airdrop program. At that time, many developers expressed dissatisfaction with the distribution method of the airdrop, believing that its distribution mechanism was too complicated and lacked transparency. In addition, although the early access version of BLAST reached a total locked value (TVL) of nearly US$100 million and a user base of 23,368 on the first day of its launch, these data cannot eliminate the market's doubts about its long-term potential and stability.
In early 2024, BLAST's mainnet was officially launched. However, the high migration cost during the mainnet launch process once again caused dissatisfaction among users. Many users complained that the migration fee of ETH was too high, making it unaffordable for ordinary users. In addition, the mixed quality of Blast ecological projects also made users doubt the overall quality of its platform.
Today, BLAST is once again at the center of controversy due to its airdrop mechanism and market volatility. From the opacity of the airdrop mechanism to the sharp fluctuations in market prices, to security issues and the lack of technical functions, BLAST faces numerous challenges. Users’ trust in the project has decreased, and the platform’s management and operation problems have gradually been exposed.
Despite this, BLAST still has a certain influence and potential in the market. Its market performance in a short period of time and the support of major platforms such as Coinbase show that BLAST is not without advantages. The key lies in whether BLAST can solve the current problems in future development, restore user confidence, and truly realize its claimed functions and advantages.
What will be the future of BLAST? Can it overcome the current challenges and continue to occupy a place in the market? Or will it gradually lose its luster amid the doubts of users? The answers to these questions are still unknown, but they will undoubtedly have a profound impact on the entire blockchain market. Will we see a more transparent, fair and secure BLAST network, or will we end up disappointed? Time will give us the answer.