The recent "INO incident" that has caused a stir in the Only1 community, what exactly is going on?

Author: James Jiang (Conflict of Interest, Only1 Token Holder)

As a writer who has been closely following and investing in the Solana ecosystem's social NFT star project, Only1, the recent initial NFT offering event has sparked controversy within the community, leading to heated discussions and even a "rights protection article" in the Chinese Telegram group, creating quite a stir.

1. The INO Incident Overview

First, let's review the events surrounding this "INO incident."

Initially, Only1 held its "Initial NFT Offering" (INO) event, planning to raise 10,000 SOL by issuing 10,000 NFTs to buy back LIKE (Only1's token) from the market, and then "adding the repurchased LIKE to the creator's rights pool to increase rewards for stakeholders."

When designing the specific rules, perhaps the project team felt that the operational costs on the Solana chain were almost zero and that there would be no "Gas War." Therefore, they feared that if they adopted a direct Mint approach, there might be scripts from scientists that would buy everything in a second, or a few people would take most of it (similar to NFT sales on Ethereum, where high fees deter many from participating).

As a result, the official team took a different approach, opting not to use a first-come, first-served Mint method, but instead designed a lottery-like weighted distribution system, likely intending to allow community users to "share the benefits equally":

Users could deposit SOL into a single address during a specified time, with 1 SOL representing 1 vote. In the future, if there was oversubscription, meaning more than 10,000 SOL participated, the distribution would be based on the proportion of each user's votes to the total votes, ensuring relative fairness.

This design, which avoided direct Minting and aimed for "equal sharing," seemed to curb certain actions by large holders and provided ordinary players with a chance to participate.

However, as fate would have it, contrary to everyone's expectations, this INO ultimately not only did not achieve oversubscription but also failed to issue all 10,000 NFTs—only 9,004 NFTs were subscribed, meaning 9,004 SOL were used to buy back LIKE (currently valued at around 1.8 million USD).

This meant that every participating user would receive something—just by participating, they would win, and even those who used multiple addresses would win as many as they entered.

Moreover, since it was not a direct Minting and instant NFT generation model, Only1 needed to distribute the NFTs to the corresponding personal addresses after the subscription event ended. Unfortunately, Only1 faced a critical moment and failed to timely distribute the NFTs to users.

Adding to this, the recent surge in SOL prices created a perfect storm of factors, leading participants in the INO to feel deceived. They not only participated in an NFT that no one was competing for but also spent real SOL without even seeing the NFTs.

This inevitably led to the perception that Only1 was merely trying to scam SOL from users, which is why since yesterday, the Only1 Telegram group has been filled with "famous quotes," with official administrators explaining things in the group, only to be met with a barrage of responses from the community, creating quite a lively atmosphere.

2. Issues During the INO Process

I have been in the Only1 Telegram group, witnessing the confusion, indignation, and the project's continuous responses.

The official team has been actively answering questions in both Chinese and English in an AMA format, which is commendable. As a LIKE token holder, I felt somewhat reassured. However, as a user, I must say that there were quite a few issues during this INO issuance.

2.1. As the Leading Social Project in the Solana Ecosystem, It Did Not Achieve "Oversubscription Expectations"

Firstly, the wealth effect in the Solana ecosystem over the past few months has been evident, with participants in projects like Raydium reaping significant rewards. Therefore, as the leading project in the current SocialFi track of the Solana ecosystem, many naturally felt that this NFT issuance would also be a case of many monks and little porridge, with winning tickets leading to direct profits.

However, Only1's INO performance was indeed disappointing. It is unclear whether this was due to SOL being too strong or if the current market has not yet discovered the value of the social NFT track, leading to this INO not reaching the "oversubscription threshold."

Of course, this is a market factor; some see it as a signal, while others see it as an opportunity. Opinions vary (I personally believe that the market currently undervalues the SocialFi track).

2.2. The Official Team Did Not Clearly Explain the Role and Function of the NFT

Moreover, the official team did not clearly articulate the role of the NFT in the Only1 ecosystem design, leading many users to feel they were merely spending money on a JPG image (especially one that could not be sold immediately), thereby overlooking the actual utility of the NFT.

The official team also failed to systematically introduce the actual functions of the NFT, and the future scenario designs accompanying the NFT were relatively lagging.

2.3. Delays in NFT Distribution and Marketplace

Additionally, while the absence of the anticipated oversubscription scenario was somewhat acceptable, the delay in NFT distribution due to development issues meant that users had not received their NFTs for a long time. The previously promised tradable Marketplace was also delayed, causing the disappointment that had already accumulated in the Telegram group to begin to fester, with many feeling they had been scammed or left holding the bag.

3. A Brief Summary of Hot Issues

I spent a day scrolling through the Telegram group, observing users' various doubts. Some of the official explanations were quite clear, while others were drowned out, lacking a coherent summary. As a LIKE token holder, I will attempt to provide a simple overview.

3.1. Is This INO a Refinance for the Project Team, or Is It to Boost LIKE?

Only1 recently introduced its "Create-to-Earn" (C2E) creator economy model, and the 10,000 SOL raised are intended to buy back LIKE from the market, then "add the repurchased LIKE to the creator's rights pool to increase rewards for stakeholders."

In other words, the 10,000 SOL raised from these NFTs is essentially a startup benefit provided to creators and fan users, not a fundraising effort for the project team itself, nor is it a way to boost LIKE.

From a certain perspective, the recent surge in SOL prices could facilitate more LIKE buybacks, thereby providing creators and fan users with greater earnings in the early stages of C2E, which is beneficial for the long-term development of the ecosystem.

3.2. Are NFTs Useless, Just a JPG Without Empowerment?

According to the official statement, this NFT serves as an "OG" badge with governance and staking reward functions on the platform.

This means that, on one hand, it will increase the staking rewards for holders; on the other hand, these NFTs play a role similar to membership credentials in the ecosystem, which can be enriched over time. For example, holding an NFT may grant access to future events.

Only1's latest Medium article also mentioned that it is somewhat akin to a tool for Only1's membership service system (similar to Playboy's recent announcement of building a new membership system through NFT issuance), and the future membership-related scenarios will continue to expand and enhance its empowerment.

3.3. With the Marketplace Not Opened, Will NFTs Be Stuck?

The official team indeed needs to provide a clearer timeline for this. Although the delay in NFT distribution was eventually resolved, having a tradable NFT marketplace is also crucial. The early launch of the Marketplace would allow NFT holders to quickly gain liquidity for their NFTs, enhancing the attractiveness of NFTs for future membership or other functional systems.

3.4. What Impact Might This INO Have on Only1?

Overall, the original intention behind this INO issuance was good, but it ultimately led to significant controversy.

Firstly, the project team failed to systematically promote and clarify the function and positioning of the NFTs in advance;

Secondly, the delays at critical moments deepened the doubts of users unfamiliar with Only1;

Thirdly, the unexpectedly quiet response to this INO was indeed surprising.

However, from a broader perspective, the project team's attitude towards solving problems is commendable; startup projects should not fear making mistakes. From another angle, for short-term users, this NFT incident may help them gain a deeper understanding of Only1; for long-term users, this could also be an opportunity to improve the NFT membership system.

Whether as LIKE token holders or NFT holders, everyone is a member of the Only1 community, forming a community of shared interests. Therefore, the criticisms are made in good faith, hoping that Only1 can make some beneficial attempts in the social NFT track and quickly usher in a revaluation of the SocialFi track.