It’s not that mdrop is inherently bad. From the beginning, my stance has been simple: if you’re going to use mdrop, you need to decide and announce that before starting any activities that promise token rewards, so that participants are fully aware of what they’re opting into when they join the network. In the case of $IKA in particular, many of the required actions were costly. Leveling up NFTs involved spending a fair amount of money, so naturally, users are sensitive about the airdrop. But the team never made any public announcement early on about adopting an mdrop model. They didn’t clarify how much SUI would be needed to redeem the tokens, nor what percentage of the total airdrop would require payment. (At first, they said it would be 50% at the time of ad claim, but now it turns out to be 85%, which is another issue.) As a result, many community members only found out on the day how much SUI they would have to pay to redeem their tokens—leading to feelings of betrayal and anger. Of course, this alone wouldn’t have been a big problem. But frankly, IKA has shown issues in communication and various other areas as well. Shall I list a few? 1. During the NFT mint, they made people work hard to get a whitelist, but then removed the WL requirement during the actual mint. 2. When SUI experienced the Cetus hack incident, they made an insensitive joke implying that SUI is so fast, even hack funds get drained quickly. Personally, I’m deeply dedicated to the Sui ecosystem, and I plan to continue supporting projects that can make a meaningful impact in this industry and in Korea. But that doesn’t mean I can blindly support every player. If we want to see meaningful players emerge within the Sui ecosystem, they need to be teams that execute well and maintain a good attitude. Karma is real.