Recently, a certain project started airdropping tokens, but there has been quite a bit of controversy. It’s said that the anti-witching review process is very strict, and many honest users who participate in trading have had their points directly deducted to negative numbers, which is a bit outrageous.

Honestly, I find this logic hard to understand. To go deeper, this is essentially the old trading mining model—participants are investing real money:

- Genuine open interest
- Real trading volume

Without these trading data supports, how can the market liquidity be so smooth? It’s simply not realistic.

If the project team is using a testnet environment, with trading not involving real funds, and any address can manipulate data freely, then I fully support strict anti-witching mechanisms. But the problem is, many projects now require exactly the opposite—real trading depth with real money + strict risk control rules. When combined, this often leads to awkward situations like this.

Who set this rule? Why is the rule design so convoluted?