cola

[cola @yeemmsa]

@chris_anm01 I would also like to know the exact criteria used to identify and handle Sybil accounts, along with the results of that process. It would also be helpful for my analysis to have all the wallet addresses provided by the moderator…

[cola @yeemmsa]

An update on this post:

Today, one day after an AXIS team member became aware of this issue, the tokens allocated to the KOL I raised concerns about were reclaimed.

However, there are still unresolved issues… The first concerns the date of a wallet’s last transaction. Among the dozens of participants I spoke with, everyone who submitted a wallet that had been inactive for several weeks or longer said they did not receive the airdrop. I also entered with multiple accounts because I wanted to receive the airdrop… So I’m very familiar with the criteria used for Sybil filtering… But it seems those criteria weren’t applied to one particular person… (Of course, there may be exceptions.. But apart from the wallet I flagged, I have not seen a recipient wallet that had been inactive for 250 days and had five or fewer transactions in total across all chains..)

The announcement in the Korean community simply stated that multiple accounts had been identified and the tokens had been reclaimed. It did not explain the details. Because of that, I used an alternate account to explain some of the situation. (My main account is muted in the Telegram group, so I could not post from it, so I used my subaccount) They then kicked me out of the group.

What I am asking for is the Telegram IDs of all the winners. Their wallet addresses can already be checked on the block explorer.

However, the moderators say they cannot provide the winners’ list because only the team has it… So I need team’s help..

I am deeply disappointed with how @axisrobotics has handled this. I just wish they would offer an apology where one is due so we can move forward…

@chris_anm01

[cola @yeemmsa]

I have serious questions about how the AXIS Robotics Korean community airdrop was handled. Participants were initially told that everyone who submitted the form would receive an allocation, before the process changed to include Sybil screening. Several participants I have spoken to believe they were rejected because their wallets lacked transaction history. Yet when I asked the Korean moderator about the actual eligibility criteria, I did not receive a clear explanation.

Meanwhile, I found that 50 different addresses transferred a total of approximately 2,047.5353 AXIS into a single wallet within 68 seconds. My understanding is that the receiving wallet belongs to “집가고싶다,” a community member who is close to the Korean moderator. This raises a specific question that deserves an answer: if those 50 addresses received the airdrop despite having little or no prior activity, why did they qualify while other similarly inactive wallets were reportedly rejected? The team should confirm whether those addresses received allocations and explain how they were assessed.

The moderator’s response was that the team handled the distribution and that they did not know the details. Simply referring the matter to “the team” leaves the concern unresolved. Who made the eligibility decisions? What criteria and cutoff date were used? Did the Korean moderator submit recommendations, influence exclusions, or participate in exceptions? Were the same rules applied to everyone? These are reasonable questions about the fairness of the distribution. The team needs to provide a direct, verifiable explanation. Leaving the criteria undisclosed while concerns about preferential treatment go unanswered only makes the process harder to trust.

@axisrobotics please explain about this situation

https://t.co/qVGOwGMQlq

[cola @yeemmsa]

@jethsub Just to clarify the context behind this post… Jeth was the one who insulted me first in the AXIS public chat. So I complained a little about him in another chat, and now he’s making an issue out of that… What a miserable way to live. Try to be a little more positive in life…

[cola @yeemmsa]

@chris_anm01 I would like a list of the Telegram IDs of all the winners… And I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong enough to deserve being told by a moderator in a DM, “Why shouldn’t you be stabbed?”😂😂

[cola @yeemmsa]

@jhaitch63 하하 공지 나간걸 확인했는데요..
무엇을 문제 삼고 있는건지 잘 모르시는 것 같아요

[cola @yeemmsa]

I have serious questions about how the AXIS Robotics Korean community airdrop was handled. Participants were initially told that everyone who submitted the form would receive an allocation, before the process changed to include Sybil screening. Several participants I have spoken to believe they were rejected because their wallets lacked transaction history. Yet when I asked the Korean moderator about the actual eligibility criteria, I did not receive a clear explanation.

Meanwhile, I found that 50 different addresses transferred a total of approximately 2,047.5353 AXIS into a single wallet within 68 seconds. My understanding is that the receiving wallet belongs to “집가고싶다,” a community member who is close to the Korean moderator. This raises a specific question that deserves an answer: if those 50 addresses received the airdrop despite having little or no prior activity, why did they qualify while other similarly inactive wallets were reportedly rejected? The team should confirm whether those addresses received allocations and explain how they were assessed.

The moderator’s response was that the team handled the distribution and that they did not know the details. Simply referring the matter to “the team” leaves the concern unresolved. Who made the eligibility decisions? What criteria and cutoff date were used? Did the Korean moderator submit recommendations, influence exclusions, or participate in exceptions? Were the same rules applied to everyone? These are reasonable questions about the fairness of the distribution. The team needs to provide a direct, verifiable explanation. Leaving the criteria undisclosed while concerns about preferential treatment go unanswered only makes the process harder to trust.

@axisrobotics please explain about this situation

https://t.co/qVGOwGMQlq

[cola @yeemmsa]

@chris_anm01 Yes, please. Honestly, it was so blatant that I couldn’t just look the other way…

[cola @yeemmsa]

I have serious questions about how the AXIS Robotics Korean community airdrop was handled. Participants were initially told that everyone who submitted the form would receive an allocation, before the process changed to include Sybil screening. Several participants I have spoken to believe they were rejected because their wallets lacked transaction history. Yet when I asked the Korean moderator about the actual eligibility criteria, I did not receive a clear explanation.

Meanwhile, I found that 50 different addresses transferred a total of approximately 2,047.5353 AXIS into a single wallet within 68 seconds. My understanding is that the receiving wallet belongs to “집가고싶다,” a community member who is close to the Korean moderator. This raises a specific question that deserves an answer: if those 50 addresses received the airdrop despite having little or no prior activity, why did they qualify while other similarly inactive wallets were reportedly rejected? The team should confirm whether those addresses received allocations and explain how they were assessed.

The moderator’s response was that the team handled the distribution and that they did not know the details. Simply referring the matter to “the team” leaves the concern unresolved. Who made the eligibility decisions? What criteria and cutoff date were used? Did the Korean moderator submit recommendations, influence exclusions, or participate in exceptions? Were the same rules applied to everyone? These are reasonable questions about the fairness of the distribution. The team needs to provide a direct, verifiable explanation. Leaving the criteria undisclosed while concerns about preferential treatment go unanswered only makes the process harder to trust.

@axisrobotics please explain about this situation

https://t.co/qVGOwGMQlq

[cola @yeemmsa]

This situation needs an explanation… People in the Korean community are struggling to understand what happened…
@chris_anm01

[cola @yeemmsa]

I have serious questions about how the AXIS Robotics Korean community airdrop was handled. Participants were initially told that everyone who submitted the form would receive an allocation, before the process changed to include Sybil screening. Several participants I have spoken to believe they were rejected because their wallets lacked transaction history. Yet when I asked the Korean moderator about the actual eligibility criteria, I did not receive a clear explanation.

Meanwhile, I found that 50 different addresses transferred a total of approximately 2,047.5353 AXIS into a single wallet within 68 seconds. My understanding is that the receiving wallet belongs to “집가고싶다,” a community member who is close to the Korean moderator. This raises a specific question that deserves an answer: if those 50 addresses received the airdrop despite having little or no prior activity, why did they qualify while other similarly inactive wallets were reportedly rejected? The team should confirm whether those addresses received allocations and explain how they were assessed.

The moderator’s response was that the team handled the distribution and that they did not know the details. Simply referring the matter to “the team” leaves the concern unresolved. Who made the eligibility decisions? What criteria and cutoff date were used? Did the Korean moderator submit recommendations, influence exclusions, or participate in exceptions? Were the same rules applied to everyone? These are reasonable questions about the fairness of the distribution. The team needs to provide a direct, verifiable explanation. Leaving the criteria undisclosed while concerns about preferential treatment go unanswered only makes the process harder to trust.

@axisrobotics please explain about this situation

https://t.co/qVGOwGMQlq

[cola @yeemmsa]

I also know more about the leak of listing information, but I won’t go into that in this post…

[cola @yeemmsa]

To be honest, I’m very close to the owner of that wallet… But wrong is wrong, regardless of our relationship.

[cola @yeemmsa]

This is the wallet address: 0x11e262946fB6133296B779CAc7Fe58F7C618f956

If you check it on BaseScan, you’ll see what I mean…

[cola @yeemmsa]

Please share this post widely so the AXIS team becomes aware of this issue. I’d really appreciate your help.

[cola @yeemmsa]

@fireant_korea @axisrobotics 가즈아~~

[FIREANT @fireant_korea]

🌕 @axisrobotics x 불개미 AMA 사전 야핑 짧먹 이벤트!

보니까 Axis 카이토 야핑이 진행중이드라고요?
그래서! AMA 전에 Axis 에 대한 간단 리서치 야핑이벤트를 진행합니다.

일정 : 10월 18일 오후 23시 30분 까지

참여방법
1. 해당 트윗 글 좋아요, 인용하여 Axis 간단 리서치
2. 이벤트리에 제출 : https://t.co/R3cgS9waOS
3. 하면 끝!

보상 : 1만원 상당의 Axis 토큰 x 100명 (ama 보상에서 빼옴)

가주아!!!

[cola @yeemmsa]

@Wi11y010 @AbstractChain 🖕🏽

[cola @yeemmsa]

@colu_farmer 코루님귤진짜맛있어요

[cola @yeemmsa]

@Wi11y010 @cct_pixie 누구세요?

[cola @yeemmsa]

온도퍼프는 매주 상당한 규모의 리워드를 뿌리고 있고, 수수료도 굉장히 저렴한 편이기에 (특히 코생퍼럴 사용하면 30퍼 추가 수수료 할인) 저도 실제로 잘 사용하고 있는데요, 특히 다른 펍덱이랑 양빵 잡아두는 용도로 주로 사용합니다
포인트도 모이니까 1석2조네요 오홍홍~~