Interview with Luma Studio: Unveiling Web3's "Volume Pumping" Underworld
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Interview with Luma Studio: Unveiling Web3's "Volume Pumping" Underworld
The "backroom dealings" between Lu Mao Studio and the project party.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsBy Furuhe, Odaily Planet Daily
Recently, LayerZero and various Layer 2 projects have launched aggressive measures against airdrop farming groups. The conflict between the two sides—ranging from rule-setting to final decision-making—appears increasingly unbalanced. The introduction of numerous anti-Sybil policies coincides with suspicions that many qualifying airdrop addresses are actually "insider wallets," sparking tensions between communities that once seemed aligned.
The situation drew wider attention when Yi He, co-founder of Binance, commented on the rise and fall of crypto markets, stating: "The market has indeed changed again. The self-destructive battle between airdrop-farming studios and L2 projects has turned into a farce. The era of farming may be coming to an end." This statement brought intense scrutiny onto both parties within the crypto ecosystem.
From an outside perspective, projects implement anti-Sybil mechanisms to curb airdrop farms, while farming studios continuously raise their operational costs to meet these criteria. It seems like a classic adversarial relationship—but is that really the case?
Odaily Planet Daily conducted an anonymous interview with the founder of an airdrop farming studio, referred to as LM (pseudonym), to uncover the untold stories behind the scenes between farming studios and project teams.
Airdrop Farming Studios May Have Originated from KOLs
The term “farming” emerged early in the industry’s development. After institutional capital entered the space, projects no longer needed public fundraising methods such as IEOs. Instead, institutions took over early-stage investments, enabling projects to survive and continue development. In return, retail users gained eligibility for token airdrops by participating in early network activities.
Meanwhile, the surge in value of Uniswap’s airdropped tokens led users to create multiple addresses for interactions, giving birth to the practice known as “farming.”
On the motivation behind farming, LM said: “I was already collecting airdrops back then—like Uniswap—but didn’t expect high returns. It wasn’t until the peak of the last bull market, during the NFT boom, that I met some well-known KOLs. They were likely among the first serious farmers. During the Aptos airdrop, each of them received at least tens of thousands of USDT. That’s when I truly realized the potential value of farming. My first dedicated farming attempt was Blur. Since NFTs were hot then, and Blur’s airdrop required trading activity on its platform, it seemed ideal. But without prior experience, I made several mistakes and only earned around 2,000 USDT.”
What prompted LM to scale up farming operations? LM explained: “I officially started building a farming studio when L2s took off. At the time, everyone across the network was farming zkSync, Starknet, and other Layer 2 projects. I realized I needed to professionalize and scale—after all, one person's time and energy are limited. More people mean greater capacity. In fact, farming studios had existed long before this moment.”
According to LM, farming studios began emerging in the mid-to-late stages of the previous bull cycle and have since matured significantly. Notably, key opinion leaders (KOLs) became central figures in this business model.
Unique Structure of the Interviewee’s Farming Studio
When discussing his current studio operations, LM said: “We currently have about seven full-time staff, plus interns and remote workers, totaling around 20 people. Our business is divided into three main areas: KOL development, community building, and farming operations.”
LM clarified: “KOL development isn’t about monetizing influencers like a traditional MCN agency. Rather, we provide them with a platform for learning and networking. Most participants are university students majoring in blockchain-related fields. They already possess foundational Web3 knowledge and aspire to build careers in the industry. By offering education and guidance, I aim to help them land jobs in Web3 companies after graduation. This not only contributes talent to the ecosystem but also benefits me personally—since they start here, their future success can enhance my reputation and open doors for collaboration.”
This KOL initiative does more than inject skilled individuals into the Web3 workforce—it offers LM potential long-term returns. One could imagine the strategic advantage if former trainees join venture funds, project teams, or even exchanges. This dynamic brings to mind the undercover agents in the film *Infernal Affairs*.
Regarding the community aspect, LM focuses on content curation and knowledge accumulation. Traffic remains a core competitive advantage. While he didn’t elaborate much on community operations, having an active community provides diverse project intelligence and allows the farming studio to extend its service offerings.
On the core business—farming—LM said: “Our farming operations fall into two categories: internal-only and semi-external. Internal farming involves meticulous, manual interactions with pre-launch projects. We avoid scripts and instead conduct human-like interactions to ensure each address qualifies for airdrops. The semi-external side serves interns and students based on interest—for example, those interested in technical work can explore node setup, while others focused purely on farming exchange tips and information.”
Pressed on why script-based farming is avoided, LM responded: “We don’t use bots primarily because most are unstable. When transactions are involved, bot errors—though rare—can lead to irreversible losses. For instance, on NFT platforms, a bug might cause a high-value NFT to be sold at a fraction of its price. Additionally, while scripted testnet interactions may be cost-free, they often produce repetitive patterns easily flagged by anti-Sybil systems during airdrop allocation.”
On tools and account management, LM said: “Our toolkit is fairly standard—fingerprint browsers, AI tools like ChatGPT to boost efficiency. For social accounts, never log into multiple accounts from the same IP, nor let multiple people access a single account. These practices help prevent detection as bot accounts.”
Asked whether his studio accepts client委托 orders, LM said: “We do get such requests, but rarely take them. Profit margins are low, and we don’t maintain large pools of accounts for third-party services. However, other studios do offer these services. Take the Starknet airdrop, for example—the infamous KOL scam where someone reportedly ran off with 20 million tokens worth over $100 million.”
As LM described, his studio operates beyond pure farming, engaging in KOL cultivation and community growth. This reflects a broader trend: farming studios evolving from single-purpose entities into diversified organizations.
The Competitive-Cooperative Relationship Between Farming Studios and Projects
During this interview, the focus centered on the complex relationship between farming studios and project teams. The goal was to uncover whether there are hidden ties or mutual benefits between them. Fortunately, LM provided candid insights, shedding light on the real dynamics behind the scenes.
Project Teams Engage in Backroom Operations—Airdrops Are No Longer Just Survivorship Bias
Describing the relationship, LM used a Web2 analogy: “Farming studios and project teams resemble product review manipulation on Taobao. Sellers post incentives on brushing platforms to push their products higher in search rankings. It’s a data-driven tactic to attract attention.”
While Taobao sellers actively seek brushers, the interviewer asked: Do Web3 project teams proactively contact farming studios to inflate interaction metrics? What do they gain? LM replied: “It depends on project size. Large projects don’t need to reach out—they naturally attract massive farming interest. Smaller ones, however, rely on farming studios to generate impressive data, increasing their chances of listing on exchanges. Typically, these small teams don’t offer direct rewards. Instead, they leak their anti-Sybil rules in advance. With insider knowledge, we’re guaranteed to qualify for airdrops.”
On details of cooperation, LM added: “Farming generally falls into two types: costly and costless. Most outreach from projects falls into the latter category, especially smaller testnet campaigns. We leverage advance knowledge of anti-Sybil rules to farm effectively. These projects want attractive testnet stats to boost visibility. Larger projects rarely approach us; instead, we pursue them to obtain rule insights. Still, some prominent projects approaching major exchanges may lack sufficient trading volume and quietly hire large farming studios to pad their numbers.”
On rumors of projects sharing a portion of raised tokens with farming studios, LM said: “My studio hasn’t taken such jobs, but peers have. This practice stems from team token release constraints. Most projects face vesting schedules, and exchange listing rules prohibit immediate dumping by core teams. So, market makers or exchanges may assist in gradual sales.”
“Another method is manipulating the airdrop itself. As rule-makers, projects can easily include their own addresses in qualification criteria—this is simple and undetectable. They don’t even need to collaborate with farming studios. By setting thresholds for TVL ranges, interaction timing, wallet balances, and transaction counts, they can ensure insiders qualify. GameFi projects are especially manipulable through level requirements or login durations. Effectively, projects can define ‘active users’ to include themselves while excluding genuine farmers. This way, they secure personal gains without alienating real users—a strategy most would logically adopt.”
Anti-Sybil Rules May Be Nothing More Than Self-Promotion for 'Clean' Data
Earlier, LayerZero’s anti-Sybil policy appeared to pit farming studios against clients, rewarding举报of shared accounts with extra tokens. How do you and your peers view this?
LM didn’t answer directly but first analyzed investor structure from a project’s perspective, dividing capital contributors into three tiers:
-
Top-tier investors: ~10% of total capital. A small number of whales contribute disproportionately—sometimes more than the bottom 90% combined. For example, one investor might deposit 100 BTC or 1,000 ETH.
-
Mid-tier investors: ~30% of total capital. These are medium-sized investors, often core users. An individual might stake 0.1 to 2.2 BTC.
-
Bottom-tier investors: Numerous small contributors, each investing minimal amounts—e.g., 0.0001 BTC.
For any project, managing these different investor segments is crucial. Should they accept all, or selectively onboard certain groups? This is a strategic decision.
Generally, projects aim to maximize capital inflow to strengthen financial resilience and sustainability. This requires designing incentive mechanisms that appeal to diverse user types and function effectively over time.
Based on this framework, LM concluded: “LayerZero’s anti-Sybil move is largely marketing—a claim that the project has no farming studios, only genuine users.”
Indeed, LM’s analysis holds weight. Even if studios occasionally举报client accounts, such cases are rare compared to the vast number of self-operated farming addresses.
Moreover, LM doesn’t see an inherent conflict between farming studios and projects. He argued: “Farming studios actually provide valuable, authentic-looking user data. Just as in Web2—Taobao’s fake orders, ad impressions, or click fraud—this is common practice. There’s a saying in advertising: ‘You never know which 70% of your ad spend is wasted, but you know it’s being wasted.’ So, consider farming as a form of promotional reward paid by projects to users. Every project needs promotion, and right now, this is the most effective solution. It’s not unique to our industry—other sectors operate similarly.”
“I believe farming is a sustainable long-term business. Each farming studio brings hundreds of active users. As long as participants follow the rules, their actions shouldn’t be dismissed as mere farming—they’re contributing real user data.”
“Secondly, in terms of initial token distribution, priority goes first to top-tier VCs (like a16z), followed by exchange launchpools or mining programs. Then comes allocations for active users, with retail investors receiving shares last. Distributing tokens to users helps with marketing and delivers high ROI. Thus, farming studios will continue thriving as long as new projects keep launching—and every new project needs users.”
“Finally, a veteran in the farming space once said: ‘Farming exists in what we call the 1.5 market—between primary and secondary markets.’ You don’t need to communicate with projects directly. As long as a project plans to issue tokens, rules will exist. Once farmers understand those rules, large-scale farming follows inevitably—even leading exchanges to offer pre-market trading for this group.”
LM speaks from the perspective of a farming studio operator. From a business logic standpoint, collaboration between projects and farming studios is rational: projects set rules, studios play by them. Both parties benefit. Yet from the average user’s viewpoint, such cooperation undermines the original promise of fair, merit-based airdrops. Still, Web3 remains a commercial arena—wherever there’s profit, there will always be a ‘江湖’ (underworld).
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
Odaily
