Past airdrops compared: what finished campaigns teach

Finished airdrops are the best evidence we have about how distributions really work. This page compares the 26 ended campaigns in our tracker, using only what their official sources and our project pages record. Where a detail is not documented we write "Not published", which means we did not find it in the sources we opened and is not a claim that the project hid it.

Comparison across ended campaigns

Filter the table

Each row is derived from the tracker data on the linked page; read the project page for the primary source links.

Patterns that recur

1. A fixed reference point. Arbitrum named a block, ZKsync a time to the hour, Scroll a snapshot at 00:00 UTC. Even loose programmes have some cut-off.
2. Breadth and duration beat volume. Arbitrum's points counted each action once, Celestia's amount depended on how much real use an address showed, and Blast tied rewards to balances over time.
3. Staff are excluded. Celestia, Eclipse, EigenLayer and Monad all excluded team members or employees.
4. Windows are short. The documented windows range from two weeks (Paradex) and 30 days (Aster, Eclipse) to roughly six months (Arbitrum, ZKsync).
5. Rules arrive late or unevenly. Kaito's tokenomics were published late, leaving participants unable to see the rules while earning; Backpack's snapshot is not published.
6. Tokens do not all vest alike. ZKsync had no vesting, Berachain used a one-year cliff, GRVT paid in tranches over 12 months, and Kamino's Season 4 penalised early claims.

Anti-Sybil styles, from loud to silent

The Sybil column spans a wide range. Celestia and LayerZero describe elaborate processes: Celestia used blocklists from earlier airdrops plus clustering analysis, while LayerZero gave flagged addresses a self-report period and sent nothing to those who stayed silent. Monad leaned on human judgement as well as data, with nominations, vouching and manual review. At the other end, many rows say Not published. For participants this matters more than any single number: a project that says nothing leaves you guessing about what duplicates, scripted activity or multiple accounts will cost.

What the whole set shows

Reading the table row by row hides the shape of the data, so it helps to step back. The comparison below is editorial judgement, drawn only from the rows above.

Three families of criteria

Most ended campaigns fall into one of three families. The first is pure on-chain history, as with ZKsync’s activity snapshot, Starknet’s users, developers and ETH stakers, or Monad’s tracks. The second is a points ledger kept by the project: Backpack, Lighter, Paradex, Aster and Kaito all rewarded points accumulated during a season, which means the project controlled both the scoring and the conversion. The third is a hybrid in which a points ledger sits beside NFT or staking categories, as at Backpack with Mad Lads holders, Babylon with Phase-1 stakers, and Berachain with testnet users, grant recipients and Boyco depositors. The practical difference is about evidence. On-chain history can be checked by anyone with a block explorer, while a points ledger is only as transparent as the project’s own pages.

Reward size and what you were told in advance

The shares of supply in the table run from 3% (Sei) to 31% (Hyperliquid), with Aster’s 53.5% describing a reserved category rather than a first payout. No clean relationship appears between a large share and a good participant experience. Paradex announced 25% and later stated 20.6%; Monad’s results show about 70.4% of the available MON was claimed; Lighter and LayerZero have no allocation percentage that we could confirm on an official page. A headline percentage is a statement about the project’s plan. What you receive depends on the number of recipients, the claim rules and the vesting terms.

Closing the loop: what happens after the window

The endings differ more than the openings. Notcoin’s unclaimed tokens were burned. MegaETH’s undelivered tokens go to the Foundation. Monad’s unclaimed share simply stayed unclaimed. Celestia, Arbitrum and Scroll closed their claim pages on a stated date. Lighter and Babylon needed no claim step at all, because tokens were credited automatically, which removed the missed-window risk but also removed any chance to act. A useful question for a new campaign is therefore not only “when is the deadline” but “what happens to my allocation if I do nothing”.

When the programme itself disappears

Some entries ended without a token reaching users in the way people expected. Abstract never officially announced a token, and the project now says its chain shuts down on 15 December 2026, with users asked to move assets off before then. Jupiter’s final Jupuary round was postponed indefinitely after a DAO vote, and Eclipse refocused its ES token on a product after its 30-day claim. These outcomes are a reminder that a points programme is a record of activity, not a contract. Treat the archive as evidence about how often plans change, and weigh any new campaign’s promises accordingly.

Mistakes participants commonly made

These are general patterns we draw from the documented cases, not accounts of individuals. They are our editorial judgement.

• Missing a window. GRVT states that unregistered allocations are forfeited and that no exception applies. Monad's results show about 70.4% of the available MON was claimed, so the rest was not.
• Assuming a second round. Some projects ran more, but LayerZero says there are no plans for a future airdrop, and Jupiter's final round was postponed indefinitely after a DAO vote.
• Chasing volume. Arbitrum deducted points for activity squeezed into 48 hours, and Lighter's terms list wash trading as ineligible.
• Trusting search results during a claim. Claim sites for Arbitrum were widely copied, according to our project page.
• Ignoring vesting. Claiming early under Kamino's Season 4 forfeited part of the reward.
• Planning around a rumour. Abstract ran an XP programme for a long period, yet the project never announced a token and now says its chain shuts down on 15 December 2026. Base has said only that it is exploring a token, with no plans shared.

Using the archive to evaluate new campaigns

Treat the table as a rubric. Ask the following of any new campaign, then compare the answers with the rows above.

Combine this with the legit airdrops checklist and the live lists on hot, potential and retroactive. The reason to look backwards is not nostalgia: it is that campaigns that answer these questions have, in our archive, been the easier ones to audit.

Why ended pages stay online

We keep them for three reasons. First, they document what actually happened, including windows and rules that vanish from project sites over time. Second, they protect visitors, because a page that plainly says a claim is closed counters the lure of finished airdrops. Third, they are the only honest basis for comparing projects, since a rule set is easiest to judge after the outcome is known.

Each page lists its official sources and verification date; our verification method explains how, and the disclaimer sets out what this site is not. Nothing here is financial advice.

Frequently asked questions

Why does an ended airdrop page stay online?

Because the record is useful. Past drops show how eligibility rules, reward sizes and claim windows were really set, which helps you judge new campaigns. Ended pages also warn visitors that a claim is closed, which matters because scammers keep advertising finished airdrops. Each page states its status and links to the official sources.

Can I still claim an airdrop that has ended?

Not through any official route we track. Where a window has closed, such as Arbitrum, Scroll or ZKsync, the official pages say claiming is no longer possible. Treat any site offering a late claim as hostile. A few programmes, like GRVT, release tokens in tranches, so check the project page for the specific terms.

What do past airdrops have in common?

In our tracked set, rules are tied to a fixed snapshot or season, rewards favour breadth and sustained use over raw volume, and many projects exclude team members. Claim windows range from two weeks to about six months. Anti-Sybil practice varies from detailed blocklists to no published method at all.

Does ending mean a project will never airdrop again?

No. It means the distribution we track is finished. Some projects, such as EigenLayer and Scroll, ran multiple rounds or earmarked more supply, while LayerZero states that it has no plans for a future airdrop. Read the project page and the official docs rather than inferring a pattern from one campaign.

How can I use archive knowledge for new campaigns?

Compare the new campaign against the questions past drops answered: is there a stated snapshot, a pool size, a published rule set, a claim window and a Sybil policy? A campaign that cannot answer most of them is less transparent than the ones in this archive. Use that as a filter, not a prediction.