With the new regulations coming out, studios have basically found a way to set the threshold.

Let's first take a look at how the most common configurations work:
· A 2+17 setup achieving 19 points, costing about $240 per month, can reach 285 points to compete for core rewards
· A 2+16 setup reaching 18 points, with a monthly cost of around $100, reliably earning 270 points
· A 2+15 setup generating 17 points, with a monthly investment of about $30, earning 255 points—this is the studio's favorite golden configuration
· A 2+14 setup reaching 16 points, spending only $23 a month, accumulating 240 points
· A 1+15 setup also at 18 points, with a better cost-performance ratio, and most suitable for bulk operations

If the participation threshold is set at 220 points, how would the earnings look if airdrops are estimated at an average price of $40 each?

The 285-point strategy can claim 6 airdrops, with a gross profit of about $300; the 270-point setup claiming 4 times nets about $110; the 255-point setup also claiming 4 times yields around $150 profit; the 240-point plan only needs to claim twice to earn about $80; even the 1+15 combo, with just 2 claims, can earn $45, and a single account could even reach $5350.

But here’s the interesting part—regardless of whether studios set the threshold at 220 or 240, they’re not afraid at all. Instead, they take the opportunity to push ordinary retail investors out. The new rules add a point deduction mechanism, which on the surface seems stricter, but in reality might allow high-score rewards to be monopolized by studio teams, making it even harder for scattered players to earn points.

If the long-term airdrop price remains stable at around $40, studios are likely to quickly push the threshold above 240 points. At that point, retail investors’ share will only get thinner and thinner. In the future, trying to casually grab rewards? It might become an increasingly distant dream.

Honestly, the original intention of the rules might be to promote fairness, but in practice, it often turns into a situation where "those with more resources eat the big share." Hopefully, project teams won’t just focus on the rules themselves but truly pay attention to the inflation of scores and the balance among various participants in the ecosystem. Don’t let good policies end up being ruined in the end.