Let's share some practical insights. I've discovered a foolproof way to judge a project's potential.

Here's the conclusion:
Whether a project can make money through its product in the future determines if it dares to be generous with airdrops.
Over the past year, I've analyzed hundreds of projects and interacted with dozens of them.
Only later did I realize that all factors influencing airdrop value point to a fundamental logic:
After the mainnet launches, who will pay to use its services?
Projects with strong product capabilities and commercial value: essential infrastructure.
Although discussing "value" in the crypto space can be a bit funny, some projects truly serve as the underlying switch that keeps the entire ecosystem running.
For example, during the rise of Rollups, data availability (DA) was the most critical necessity.
Projects like Celestia, Avail, EigenDA, Walrus—L2s, application chains, modular stacks—are like fish out of water without them.
So, after mainnet launch, there will definitely be real money paid.
Another example is cross-chain and interoperability.
Protocols like LayerZero, Succinct, Axelar, Hyperlane are essentially the "highways" for messages in the multi-chain era.
With so many L2s, applications must connect via their APIs to communicate.
As long as funds, order flows, or AI Agents cross chains, their fees become predictable.
And then there's ZK (Zero-Knowledge proofs) that we hear about often now.
It used to be just narrative, but now it’s the foundation of computation and security layers.
Rollups, cross-chain bridges, AI Agents, privacy apps—all rely on proofs to operate.
Projects like Succinct, RiscZero, Lagrange, Nil Foundation—"on-chain compute providers"—as long as chains and applications need verifiable computation, they have steady cash flow.
So, one thing to understand is enough:
If you're here to open a position and harvest profits, you'll definitely choose hot tracks.
Choosing hot tracks means you can't avoid these infrastructure projects.
Avoiding infrastructure means they will keep making money.
It's a simple logic.
Projects with weak product strength and fuzzy commercial value: Narrative-driven.
This type relies entirely on emotion and imagination:
Representative projects: Story / Camp / Lens.
On-chain IP is basically about selling stories, but Web3 rights confirmation doesn’t automatically bring monetization.
Camp’s AI + IP approach sounds exciting, but who will pay for "generated stories"?
Story aims to do on-chain content distribution, but user habits, ad models, and ecosystem stickiness haven't been established.
Revenue can only come from token value.
Lens is even more typical.
"Decentralized social" has been hyped for three years,
creators don’t migrate, users don’t stay,
if you really want to eliminate Web2 platform effects,
you first need to answer: why has Twitter lasted so long, and why would you?
Ultimately, they never intended to build products,
they just use narratives to attract people.
Summary:
If you can't remember all this, just remember one thing:
Imagine the project is officially launched—ask yourself: who will pay to use its services?
Someone pays → high probability of success
No one pays → airdrops will definitely be stingy
This rule runs through the past, present, and will definitely continue into the future.
If you agree with what I said, please share this article with your friends, so everyone can reduce unnecessary losses and find more happiness.