Airdroplet Methodology & Corrections

The score is a research priority

A score estimates whether a sufficiently researched opportunity deserves attention relative to the rest of the index. It is not a project-quality rating, a token-price forecast, or a promise that an airdrop will happen. Strong projects can have weak airdrop evidence, and confirmed distributions can still be poor opportunities after cost and effort.

Only full dossiers enter the numerical ranking. Discovered projects, active research, and research briefs remain visibly unranked even if an old data import contains a score. This prevents thin evidence from looking precise.

After the evidence gate is cleared, tiers are calculated from the current opportunity score: S is 90–100, A is 78–89, B is 60–77, C is 30–59, and D is below 30.

The evidence gate comes first

A full dossier needs a named campaign tied to sources and a verification date, at least one concrete task, explicit fee and capital estimates, a dated research check, project context, and a reversible verdict that says who the opportunity suits and who should skip it.

Records that do not clear that gate can still help readers discover a project. They are labeled Discovered, Researching, or Research brief and shown in the research queue instead of a tier.

Status words have fixed meanings

Points, a confirmed reward, a checker, a claim, a distribution, and a closed campaign are different states. “Points only” means a program exists but does not prove a token conversion or allocation. “Checker open” means an official eligibility path was found; it does not mean a wallet qualifies. “Claim open” requires an official claim path. “Closed” or “distributed” means a published window or distribution has ended, not that a project can never run a future campaign.

When the evidence does not establish a state, the record says unknown, under review, or unconfirmed. A project’s funding, popularity, social activity, or token plans do not substitute for a published reward rule.

How we weigh sources and dates

Project-owned documentation, applications, governance posts, terms, and signed announcements are the preferred evidence for consequential claims. Reputable reporting and public datasets can supply context, but cannot by themselves establish a claim URL, allocation, deadline, or conversion rule. Community posts are leads to investigate, not proof. Each dossier shows source links and a checked date; an older record is not made current by changing its date without a material review.

Active claims, checkers, and campaigns should be rechecked at least every 30 days, immediately before a published deadline, and whenever an official source changes the state. If sources conflict, the page should say so and lower confidence rather than pick the more exciting interpretation.

What pushes a score up

• Direct, current evidence of a points program, eligibility system, claim, or incentive.
• A clear participation path that can be verified on an official domain.
• Credible team, product use, funding, and ecosystem support.
• Attractive potential upside relative to cost, time, and smart-contract exposure.
• Recent official signals that keep the opportunity live.

What pushes a score down

• No direct opportunity evidence beyond community rumor.
• High capital requirements, repeated transaction costs, or unclear task completion.
• Stale research, closed snapshots, finished distributions, or abandoned campaigns.
• Security, legal, sybil, team, token-design, or execution risks.

Corrections, attribution, and links

Airdroplet Research is the accountable organization-level byline for this index. We do not present a fictional individual reviewer. Consequential corrections are recorded on the affected project page with a date, an explanation of what changed, and the relevant source mapping where available. Readers can report an error, broken official domain, or security concern through the corrections contact route.

Some external project links can be marked “referral.” That label is a disclosure only: it does not make a project official, change its score, or alter its evidence confidence. Airdroplet does not accept payment in exchange for a favorable score, and editorial inclusion remains subject to the same evidence gate.