1Q:7>!N]U:V>6DL+@HV>?{]]:L'.XP{DU},K<(F
SYSTEM PROCESSING...
1Q:7>!N]U:V>6DL+@HV>?{]]:L'.XP{DU},K<(F
SYSTEM PROCESSING...
Posted: 2025-04-25 06:37:00 UTC
This article contains some claims that are falsified. While not everything in the article is false, please proceed with extreme caution and verify any critical information independently.
This article contains some claims that are falsified. While not everything in the article is false, please proceed with extreme caution and verify any critical information independently.
Status
Last Updated
2025-04-25 06:42:27 UTC
Verified By
Rollup News
The author expresses concerns about the treatment of communities in crypto projects, using PocketFi as an example. They criticize the project's confusing eligibility mechanics, auto-claim fees, and Proof of Humanity requirements, arguing that these practices extract from the community rather than empower it. The author urges projects to listen to their communities and avoid last-minute changes and poorly thought-out systems.
Community treatment in crypto projects
Extraction vs. empowerment of communities
Confusing eligibility mechanics
Importance of listening to the community
Erosion of trust due to poor practices
Confusing eligibility mechanics
High auto-claim fees
Proof of Humanity requirements
Last-minute changes
Poorly thought-out systems
Lack of communication and transparency