This thread serves as the official forum for community discussion regarding the design and implementation of a potential airdrop program for the Onyx Goliath Testnet. The objective of this discussion is to gather community input on how such a program should be structured, including but not limited to the anticipated number of participants, eligibility criteria, performance and participation metrics, reward allocation methodology, total reward distribution, and any other considerations the community deems relevant.
Feedback and insights collected through this discussion will be used by the Onyx team to draft an Onyx Improvement Proposal (OIP) seeking approval for a rewards program. Subsequently, and closer to the anticipated mainnet release, a separate OIP will be introduced to define and finalize the specific details of the testnet reward structure and airdrop distribution.
This is a nice development. This information should be spread across different platforms for more awareness, especially for community members whose feedback would be very vital in shaping how the rewards will be designed
Thanks for creating this thread—excited to contribute ideas for a fair reward for genuine testnet participation.
Eligibility Criteria
Limit to users with verified wallets that have interacted with the testnet (e.g., unique transactions across core features like swapping, staking and bridging).
A minimum activity period (e.g., 14+ days)
Reward Allocation Methodology
40% to top performers, 40% to consistent mid-tier participants, 20% to broad base.
Snapshot multiple times (e.g., end of phases) to reward sustained effort.
The community has been asking for a while whether there will be rewards for the testnet, and it was a good step to open this up for discussion with the community.
My opinion on reward distribution is that it should be done similarly to the Season 1 Points program. The more contribution you provide, the more reward you should receive from the reward pool relative to the total contribution. I believe that every wallet participating in the testnet should be rewarded. If transactions are being made and contributions are provided to the testnet, rewards should be given accordingly. Frankly, it would not be good to see people who contributed to the testnet but were eliminated at the end because they did not meet certain criteria. Even a single transaction should be rewarded, and I support the idea that even this level of contribution should be visible and recognized.
The total reward pool should be set at a reasonable level, and I think an amount between 5–10 million XCN could be distributed.
It should also be remembered that we already have an ongoing Season 2 Points program, where the community is being rewarded, and participants would additionally receive testnet rewards. The reward structure should be designed in a way that does not put excessive pressure on the treasury.
Another important factor is the number of days you participate in the testnet. Someone who performs transactions every day should not receive the same amount as someone who transacts once a week. Wallets’ active days should be identified accordingly, and an additional bonus could be given based on this. This would also help increase active participation.
That’s all for now. Everyone can contribute to shaping the general framework by sharing different ideas. If you have a suggestion, please write it so we can see all the community’s ideas and proposals and find a middle ground together.
I believe the reward for participating in the Goliath Testnet should be calculated based on the following criteria:
Number of transactions Allocate a certain amount and distribute it among all participants as a percentage.
Number of token exchange. Also allocate a certain amount and distribute it among the participants.
Number of transfers via the bridge. Also, allocate the amount and distribute it as a percentage among all participants.
It’s crucial to consider all test participants’ results from before the first and second updates (all metrics were annulled twice) to ensure a fair rewards.
This is a defining moment for Onyx because the Goliath project will set the precedence “upon launch, projected to handle approximately 100,000 cryptocurrency transactions per second, with final consensus reached in seconds, setting a new performance benchmark far beyond that of traditional public distributed ledger technologies” (Onyx, 2025).
Overall, I believe every wallet user and developer who participates in the Goliath testnet should be recognized for helping strengthen the network. If participation can be tracked through the wallets used, this would be a great way to acknowledge and reward the community’s contribution.
Proposed Goliath Testnet Reward Tiers
Base Tier – Participation
Wallets that completed the required testing guidelines and confirmed participation as a user or developer
Includes basic interactions such as connecting a wallet, submitting test transactions, or completing required checklists
Reward: Small base allocation to recognize participation and network support
Tier 2 – Active Usage
Wallets that consistently used the testnet over a defined period
Includes multiple transactions, interaction with core features, or repeated testing sessions
Initiatives like this are important so that the design of the Goliath Testnet airdrop is fair, transparent, and truly reflects the community’s contributions. Hopefully, the input collected can help the Onyx team build a solid OIP that is aligned with the goals of the ecosystem ahead of the mainnet
All the ideas people posted are very nice and I agree with the most of them! And I would like to give my contribution as well!
Here my point of view:
A Goliath testnet airdrop should prioritize meaningful, contextual contribution rather than raw activity counts.
Some principles that may help structure it fairly:
Context-aware evaluation: activity should be assessed relative to testnet phase and network conditions. High interaction during unstable or resource-constrained periods often reflects stress testing rather than low-effort farming.
Contribution score over binary eligibility: combining temporal distribution, interaction diversity, consistency, and advanced roles provides a stronger signal than simple thresholds.
Phase-aware weighting with anti-sybil safeguards: activity should be weighted in context, with protections focused on behavioral correlation and late-phase diminishing returns, without penalizing legitimate early usage.
Non-linear distribution: rewards should recognize top contributors while keeping median allocations meaningful.
Overall, the goal is to align the airdrop with long-term mainnet participation by rewarding users who helped the network mature, rather than optimizing for short-term activity maximization.
It’s interesting to see how creative this gets, would love to see more community members engage and share how they would love to see the testnet users rewarded
For the testnet rewards program, I think the key is to balance broad participation with meaningful contribution. Simple activity-based rewards (transactions, uptime, bug reports) should be weighted alongside performance-based metrics to avoid farming behavior.
Clear eligibility cut-offs, transparent scoring, and Sybil resistance mechanisms will be critical. It would also help to communicate early whether rewards are capped per wallet or per role (validator, user, developer).
Looking forward to the draft OIP and further clarity as we approach mainnet.
I’d suggest rewarding sustained participation rather than one-time actions. Wallets that stayed active across multiple phases of the testnet, submitted feedback, or interacted with core features should be prioritized over short-term usage.
This would better reflect real contributors and discourage last-minute farming once a rewards program is announced.
Appreciate the team opening this thread and explicitly inviting community input. A testnet rewards program, if designed well, can do more than distribute tokens — it can shape user behavior ahead of mainnet.
In my view, the guiding principle should be quality over quantity. The program should reward participants who helped stress-test real system assumptions rather than those who optimized for surface-level activity once incentives were anticipated.
A tiered approach may work best:
• baseline rewards for eligible participation,
• higher weighting for sustained engagement across multiple testnet phases, and
• bonus allocations for contributions that clearly improved protocol stability or usability.
This would encourage early and continuous involvement while still keeping the program accessible to newer participants.
On eligibility, I think duration and consistency matter more than raw activity counts.
For example, a wallet that interacted meaningfully with the testnet over several weeks should be valued more than one that performed a high number of actions in a short window. Metrics like unique active days, participation across different testnet versions, or engagement before the rewards discussion became public could help distinguish genuine users.
It may also be worth defining a clear minimum participation threshold early on, so expectations are managed and the community understands what “eligible” actually means.
Sybil resistance is probably the hardest part of any testnet rewards design, but it’s also the most important for perceived fairness.
Without safeguards, a small number of actors can dilute the rewards pool through automated or multi-wallet behavior, which ultimately discourages real contributors.
Possible mitigations could include:
• weighting based on behavioral patterns rather than transaction volume alone,
• diminishing returns for repetitive actions, and
• caps on rewards per wallet or per role.
Even imperfect measures, if transparently communicated, would be better than none.
On distribution, clarity on timing and structure will be important.
If rewards are to be vested, locked, or distributed in phases, it would help to communicate this early so expectations are aligned. Likewise, confirming whether rewards are tied to mainnet participation, governance activity, or future commitments would allow participants to plan accordingly.
Clear communication here can prevent misunderstandings and preserve goodwill, especially among early contributors.
From a community perspective, transparency is less about numbers and more about trust. Knowing roughly how contributions are being evaluated helps people feel comfortable with the outcome, even if they don’t receive much themselves.
Sharing the logic behind the program, and being open about its limitations, would likely be appreciated more than trying to present it as perfectly fair.
The reward for participating in the Goliath Network should be based on three principles:
Reward participants who test the network from the very beginning.
Reward those who reported errors and shortcomings of the testnet.
Reward those who actively participated in testing, made transactions, exchanged, and made transfers across the bridge.
I believe that the minimum amount for the reward is 200,000,000 XCN, as our activities have revealed problems with the Goliath test network, helped to fix them, and will contribute to the launch of an improved main network in the future. It would be fair to distribute this amount among all participants, and everyone would be satisfied.