The launch of the BLAST token has received mixed reviews: a short-term surge has led to widespread complaints within the community

Recently, the highly anticipated native token of the Ethereum Layer 2 network, Blast (BLAST), has finally launched, and its price surged by 40% in just a few days. According to CoinMarketCap data, the price of BLAST rose from $0.02 at launch to $0.0281, demonstrating the market's high interest in this new token. Equally exciting is that Coinbase quickly announced support for BLAST trading, injecting more liquidity into the token.
However, with the debut of BLAST and its strong initial performance, underlying issues are gradually coming to light. High expectations, unfair airdrop distribution, user complaints, and missing platform features are revealing the actual challenges faced by BLAST.

Let’s delve into these issues and uncover the true face behind the shiny exterior of BLAST.

The short-term surge of the BLAST token cannot mask a series of problems, leaving users disappointed

Since its launch, the BLAST token has performed impressively, attracting a large number of investors. Since its release, the price of BLAST has risen from $0.02 to $0.0281, achieving a 40% increase in just a few days, with a fully diluted valuation (FDV) reaching $2 billion. This performance far exceeds other high-profile airdrop projects launched during the same period, such as Ethereum Layer 2 network zkSync and cross-chain interoperability LayerZero, which saw declines of 46% and 43%, respectively.
According to CoinMarketCap data, BLAST's trading volume reached $370 million shortly after its launch, with a market capitalization exceeding $480 million, and FDV surpassing $2.8 billion. Such market performance has undoubtedly sparked widespread discussion. However, behind the impressive data, the BLAST project is also facing some issues and doubts.

The actual execution of the BLAST airdrop plan has sparked dissatisfaction among some users. This airdrop released 17% of the total supply, with 7% allocated to users bridging Ethereum or USD on the Blast network, another 7% to users contributing to DApps, and 3% allocated to the Blur Foundation for future community airdrops. However, this distribution method has not been universally accepted by all users. For example, Christian, a partner at NextGen Digital Venture, posted on the X platform that he deposited over $50 million in BLAST but only received $100,000 in airdrops, expressing dissatisfaction with the BLAST project.
After BLAST's launch, the market experienced significant volatility, and some users' expectations were not met. Statistics show that the BLAST token faced massive sell-offs in a short period, causing the price to drop below $0.02, leading to the value of the 14 billion token pool, originally designated as rewards for users, plummeting to $289 million. Such market performance has left some DeFi users feeling disappointed.
Additionally, the BLAST airdrop activity has attracted a large number of scammers. According to a report from crypto security service Scam Sniffer, a user lost over $217,000 after signing multiple phishing signatures. Such incidents not only affect users' interests but also impact BLAST's credibility.
Overall, although BLAST has achieved initial success in the market, underlying concerns still exist. From dissatisfaction with airdrop distribution to market volatility and security issues, BLAST faces significant challenges that need to be addressed.

Problem Review: Lack of fairness in airdrop activities, poor price stability, and frequent hacking incidents

Despite BLAST's initial market success, the accompanying criticism cannot be ignored. These criticisms stem from multiple aspects, each revealing specific problems and challenges in BLAST's actual operations.
First is the issue of transparency and unfair distribution in the airdrop mechanism. Many users have expressed that the BLAST airdrop plan has numerous opaque aspects in its actual operation. Some users feel that their activities on the network did not receive the rewards they deserved. The treatment of large users has been particularly controversial. For instance, Christian from NextGen Digital Venture stated that he deposited over $50 million in BLAST but only received $100,000 in airdrops, leading many users to question BLAST's fairness and transparency.
Secondly, although BLAST's market performance saw a short-term increase, its long-term stability is in question. The BLAST token experienced significant price fluctuations after its launch, rising from $0.02 to $0.0281 before dropping below $0.02 due to massive sell-offs. This volatility has left some users facing losses after buying at high prices, resulting in dissatisfaction. According to Odaily Planet Daily data, the decline in BLAST's price caused the value of the 14 billion token pool, designated as rewards, to drop to $289 million, far below user expectations.
Moreover, the scams that occurred during the BLAST airdrop process have also negatively impacted the project. Since airdrop activities typically require users to connect wallets and sign transactions, this has provided opportunities for scammers. A report from crypto security service Scam Sniffer indicated that a user lost over $217,000 after signing multiple phishing signatures. Such incidents not only harm users' interests but also impact BLAST's credibility, leading users to doubt the project's security.
Additionally, technical and functional issues with BLAST have also raised questions. Although BLAST, as an Ethereum Layer 2 network, claims to provide higher transaction speeds and lower fees, some users have found that its functionality did not meet expectations in practice. For example, some users reported that during bridging operations, ETH needed to be locked for several months, restricting liquidity.
Overall, the criticisms faced by BLAST mainly focus on the lack of transparency and fairness in the airdrop mechanism, excessive market volatility, frequent security issues, and unmet technical and functional expectations. These problems not only affect users' experience and confidence but also pose numerous challenges for BLAST's future development.

BLAST has faced skepticism since before its launch, and its future trajectory needs continuous observation

The launch of the BLAST token has attracted widespread market attention, but the accompanying wave of criticism has also surged. In fact, this is not the first time BLAST has faced such a situation. In previous events, BLAST similarly encountered similar doubts and criticisms.
As early as November 2023, when BLAST launched its Developer Airdrop plan, it sparked widespread discussion and skepticism. At that time, many developers expressed dissatisfaction with the distribution method of the airdrop, believing that its distribution mechanism was overly complex and lacked transparency. Furthermore, although the early access version of BLAST achieved nearly $100 million in total locked value (TVL) and 23,368 users on its first day, these figures did not dispel market doubts about its long-term potential and stability.
In early 2024, BLAST's mainnet officially launched. However, the high migration costs during the mainnet launch once again sparked user dissatisfaction. Many users complained that the migration fees for ETH were too high, making it difficult for ordinary users to bear. Additionally, the mixed quality of projects within the Blast ecosystem has also raised doubts about the overall quality of its platform.

Now, BLAST is once again in the spotlight due to issues with its airdrop mechanism and market volatility. From the lack of transparency in the airdrop mechanism to the dramatic fluctuations in market prices, as well as security issues and missing technical functionalities, BLAST faces a myriad of challenges. Users' trust in the project has diminished, and the platform's management and operational issues are gradually being exposed.
Nevertheless, BLAST still holds a certain influence and potential in the market. Its market performance achieved in a short time, along with support from major platforms like Coinbase, indicates that BLAST is not without advantages. The key lies in whether BLAST can resolve the existing issues in its future development, restore user confidence, and truly realize its claimed functionalities and advantages.
What will the future of BLAST look like? Can it overcome the current challenges and continue to hold a place in the market? Or will it gradually lose its luster amid users' doubts? The answers to these questions remain uncertain, but they will undoubtedly have a profound impact on the entire blockchain market. Will we see a more transparent, fair, and secure BLAST network, or will we ultimately be disappointed? Time will provide us with the answers.