Ethereum zero knowledge (ZK) focused Layer-2 network zkSync faced criticism from crypto industry observers due to the lack of sybil countermeasures and the unfair distribution of its token zkSync (ZK) during the airdrop event. Layer-2 network Polygon’s security chief Mudit Gupta made notable remarks in a post on June 11.
zkSync Airdrop Event Sparks Controversy
Mudit Gupta addressed in the post that there was almost no sybil filtering in the zkSync airdrop event, and anyone who knew the criteria could easily handle it. On June 11, zkSync announced that 695,232 wallets were eligible for the ZK token airdrop event.
A list of seven eligibility criteria was shared, which aimed to protect against sybil attacks where an entity uses multiple wallets to qualify for crypto airdrop events. Cinneamhain Ventures partner Adam Cochran shared zkSync’s eligibility criteria and commented:
“This was not a well-planned airdrop event in terms of sybil. These criteria are easy to meet as a real user, and as a user without a sybil counter program, these criteria are easy to meet.”
Reactions to the Issue Continue
The reactions led crypto analysis firm Nansen to clarify that it did not perform sybil countermeasures or advise on allocations for ZK token distribution but provided data on certain wallet segments, including whales and known scammers. However, crypto researcher Ignas emphasized that zkSync deliberately did not implement strict sybil countermeasures and highlighted in the press release that sybil detection often disables real users with arbitrary filters.
Sybil monitoring X account Sybil Horror 6 published a preliminary estimate using LayerZero Labs data, claiming that 135 million ZK tokens could be directed to sybil wallets listed by LayerZero. Based on ZK’s pre-market price on Aevo and PancakeSwap, the value of these assets could reach up to $52.3 million.
The token dropped by around 43% in both markets in the last 24 hours, coinciding with zkSync’s announcement of the airdrop event details. zkSync’s development firm Matter Labs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
