Ether.fi Season 3 Case Study

10,015 wallets • 90-day analysis • October 2024

Onchain Data Proof - Better Ether.fi Season 3 Airdrops with zScore

We analyzed 10,015 wallets from Ether.fi's Season 3 airdrop, tracking behavior for 90 days post-distribution. The data reveals a critical pattern: 54.8% of recipients scored below 100, representing massive waste in token distribution.

Key Finding

Wallets with scores below 200 show 64-70% dump rates, while those above 500 demonstrate 77% retention. Historical bad actors show 39-59% repeat behavior in Ether.fi Season 3.

The Pattern: Historical Bad Actors Repeat

Wallets that dumped in previous airdrops show high repeat rates in Ether.fi Season 3

Critical Finding

In the 0-50 score range, 39.3% of historically bad actors repeated their behavior. This rate increases to 44-59% in the 200-400 range, proving that low scores are strong predictors of future dumps.

Token Distribution Waste

How ETHFI tokens were distributed to good vs bad actors across score ranges

Massive Waste in Low Scores

In scores 0-200, bad actors received 715,760 ETHFI tokens worth approximately $1.79M at $2.50/ETHFI. This represents pure waste that could have been allocated to quality participants or saved entirely.

Business Impact

Quantified value of using zScore for Ether.fi Season 3

715,760
Saved by filtering 0-200

Token Waste Reduction

Tokens saved from being distributed to low-quality wallets

+58%
Better retention above 500

Quality Improvement

Wallets with scores 500+ show 77% good behavior vs 70% below 500

54.8%
5,492 wallets in 0-100

Sybil Reduction

Over half of recipients are low-quality, new, or test accounts

39-59%
Bad actors repeat

Repeat Offenders

Historical bad actors in low scores repeat bad behavior at high rates

$1.8M
At $2.50/ETHFI

Cost Efficiency

Estimated value saved by filtering scores 0-200

100%
Score 700+ retention

Elite Performance

Highest quality wallets show perfect retention behavior

Critical Insights

Key findings from the Ether.fi Season 3 analysis

The 500+ Quality Threshold

Wallets scoring above 500 demonstrate significantly better behavior - 77% good vs 64-70% in lower ranges. This represents a critical quality inflection point.

Target scores 500+ for premium allocations

Massive Low-Score Concentration

54.8% of all recipients (5,492 wallets) scored below 100. These are primarily new wallets, test accounts, or users with minimal protocol engagement.

Filter out 0-200 to save 715K tokens

Historical Patterns Repeat

Wallets that were historically bad actors show 39-59% repeat rates in lower score ranges. Past behavior is a strong predictor of future actions.

Use historical data to filter repeat offenders

Token Distribution Imbalance

In scores 0-200, bad actors received 715,760 ETHFI tokens. This represents wasted distribution that could have gone to quality participants.

$1.8M saved at current prices

Without zScore vs With zScore Filtering

Traditional vs optimized distribution outcomes

Total Recipients

Without
10,015
With
4,729
-52.8%

Dump Rate

Without
37.3%
With
24.2%
-13.1%

Wasted Value

Without
$3.9M
With
$2.1M
$1.8M saved

Sybil Wallets

Without
54.8%
With
25.8%
-29%

Bottom Line Impact

Financial impact from score-based filtering

$1.79M Savings for Ether.fi Season 3

Actual Data
10,015 wallets total
4.14M ETHFI distributed
$2.50/ETHFI = $10.36M budget
Without zScore
54.8% low-quality (0-100)
715,760 ETHFI wasted
$1.79M wasted
With zScore
Filter 5,486 low-quality
Focus on 4,529 quality wallets
$1.79M saved
Net Savings from Filtering Scores 0-200
$1.79M Saved
Plus 2.2× more tokens per quality user

Cost Savings

  • 52.8% budget reduction filtering scores 0-200
  • 29% Sybil reduction eliminating low-quality wallets

Quality Improvement

  • +13.1% retention from 62.7% to 75.8%
  • 77% good behavior in 500+ score range

Recommended Allocation Strategy

Optimize your airdrop budget based on wallet quality scores

0-200High Risk

Exclude or minimal allocation

0-5%
of budget

64-70% will dump immediately, historical bad actors

200-300Medium Risk

Reduced allocation with vesting

10-15%
of budget

67% dump risk, mixed engagement patterns

300-500Moderate

Standard allocation

20-25%
of budget

64-65% good behavior, active traders

500-600Good

Increased allocation

30-35%
of budget

77% retention, quality LP providers

600+Excellent

Maximum allocation + bonuses

30-40%
of budget

81-100% retention, protocol champions

Implementation Checklist

Step-by-step guide to implementing zScore in your airdrop

1Pre-Airdrop Planning

  • Integrate zScore API for wallet scoring
  • Set minimum score threshold (recommended
    200+)
  • Configure bonus multipliers for high scores (500+)

2During Distribution

  • Define your quality threshold based on goals
  • Allocate larger shares to scores 500+
  • Filter out scores below 200 to eliminate waste

Don't Trust? Verify

Download complete dataset: 10,015 wallets, 90-day tracking, all scores & behaviors

Download Data

Expected Outcomes

+13.1%
Token Retention
29%
Sybil Reduction
$1.79M
Cost Savings
Optimize Your Next Airdrop