Tria Airdrop Shocker: 90% of Users Wiped Out as “NOT Eligible” — Scam Drama or XP Trap?

Tria Airdrop Claim Sparks Backlash: Scam Allegations, XP Rules, Distribution, and TGE Explained

A growing controversy surrounding the Tria airdrop has ignited frustration across its community, with many users questioning whether the failed claims point to a scam or simply poor communication. At the center of the dispute is an airdrop eligibility checker that has reportedly labeled more than 90% of participants as “Not Eligible,” triggering widespread anger among early adopters and premium users.

While accusations of fraud have circulated widely on social media, no verified evidence has emerged to confirm malicious intent. Instead, the situation appears to reflect a breakdown in expectations, messaging, and transparency around XP requirements, spending thresholds, and the distinction between Season 1 and Season 2 rewards.

Why the Tria Community Is Angry

The backlash intensified shortly after users attempted to claim their airdrop allocations. Many long-time participants, including those who had actively used the platform, paid for memberships, or engaged in trading activities, found themselves excluded.

For early supporters, the rejection felt particularly severe. Some users reported having invested significant time and capital into the ecosystem, only to discover that their efforts did not meet the eligibility criteria set for Season 1.

Source: Cryptolakhan X

The anger was compounded by Tria’s tokenomics disclosures, which showed that more than 41% of the total token supply was allocated to the community. For many, this raised expectations of broader inclusion. When the majority of users were deemed ineligible, questions quickly emerged around fairness, transparency, and whether the rules had been clearly communicated before users committed resources.

The Airdrop Snapshot and Eligibility Cutoff

A key factor behind the confusion lies in the timing of the airdrop snapshot.

According to official information, the eligibility snapshot was taken on January 30, 2026. Any activity recorded after that date was excluded from Season 1 calculations and instead counted toward Season 2.

This distinction caught many users off guard. Even participants who remained highly active after the snapshot date were unable to qualify for Season 1 rewards, leading to the perception that ongoing engagement had been disregarded.

For some, the snapshot timing was not clearly emphasized prior to subscriptions or spending, fueling claims that expectations were misaligned from the start.

Season 1 vs Season 2: Understanding the Differences

The Tria airdrop is structured across two distinct phases, each with very different mechanics and reward philosophies.

Season 1 has already concluded and offered a one-time reward based on strict eligibility criteria. To qualify, users needed to meet at least one of several demanding thresholds. These included accumulating approximately 25,000 XP, purchasing a paid membership costing more than $100, or generating over $25,000 in futures trading volume.

For the majority of users, these benchmarks proved difficult to reach. As a result, only a small portion of the community qualified for Season 1 claims, which could be redeemed directly within the app.

Season 2, by contrast, is currently live and follows a different approach. Rather than a single payout, rewards are distributed gradually through a loyalty-based system. This phase emphasizes continued engagement, XP accumulation, staking activity, and regular usage of the Tria wallet.

According to the team, Season 2 rewards are expected to be larger in aggregate than those offered in Season 1, though they will be distributed over time rather than upfront.

Scam or Miscommunication?

As frustration mounted, the phrase “Tria airdrop scam” began trending across community channels. However, despite the intensity of the backlash, there has been no confirmed evidence of fraudulent behavior by the project team.

Instead, the controversy appears rooted in several structural and communication issues. Many users say the XP requirements were not clearly explained before they committed funds or time. Others point to the high spending thresholds as being unrealistic for average participants.

Trust was further eroded by the relative silence of some influencers who had previously promoted the project. Their lack of public clarification, reportedly due to involvement with other SocialFi platforms, contributed to a perception that community concerns were being ignored.

Taken together, these factors suggest a case of misaligned expectations and insufficient disclosure rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive users.

Tokenomics Breakdown and TGE Details

Despite the controversy, Tria has moved forward with its token launch. According to officially released tokenomics, the total supply is capped at 10 billion tokens, with 41.04% allocated to the community.

At the time of the Token Generation Event, the circulating supply stood at 21.89% of the total. The TGE took place on February 3, 2026, with 20% of distributed tokens unlocked immediately.

The remaining tokens are subject to a vesting schedule that includes a three-month cliff followed by six months of linear vesting, a structure commonly used to limit immediate sell pressure and encourage longer-term participation.

Tria Token Listing and Market Reaction

The Tria token was listed on the same day as its TGE across several major exchanges, including Binance, Bybit, Bitget, and KuCoin.

Source: CMC

The high-profile listings fueled short-term speculation and trading activity. As of the latest data, the token was trading at approximately $0.01894, reflecting a 24-hour increase of more than 25%. Market capitalization stood near $40.87 million, with 24-hour trading volume exceeding $308 million, indicating strong liquidity and heightened interest.

While early price action has been volatile, analysts caution that post-airdrop dynamics often involve sharp fluctuations as eligible recipients decide whether to hold or sell their allocations.

The Role of Season 2 in Rebuilding Trust

For many community members, Season 2 represents a critical test for the project’s credibility. The loyalty-based reward model offers Tria an opportunity to demonstrate improved transparency and more inclusive participation.

Clear communication around XP mechanics, staking rewards, and distribution timelines will likely determine whether the platform can regain user confidence. Failure to address these concerns could reinforce skepticism, while proactive engagement may help reframe the narrative.

Industry observers note that similar controversies have played out across other airdrop-driven projects, often serving as lessons in how not to manage user expectations during token launches.

Conclusion

The Tria airdrop controversy highlights the risks of unclear communication in Web3 incentive models. While allegations of a scam have dominated online discussions, the available evidence points more toward miscommunication and demanding eligibility rules than intentional wrongdoing.

With Season 2 still underway, the project has an opportunity to reset expectations and demonstrate accountability. Whether Tria succeeds in rebuilding trust will depend largely on transparency, consistency, and how well it aligns future rewards with the broader community it aims to serve.

hokanews.com – Not Just Crypto News. It’s Crypto Culture.

Writer @Erlin
Erlin is an experienced crypto writer who loves to explore the intersection of blockchain technology and financial markets. She regularly provides insights into the latest trends and innovations in the digital currency space.
 
 Check out other news and articles on Google News

Disclaimer:

The articles published on hokanews are intended to provide up-to-date information on various topics, including cryptocurrency and technology news. The content on our site is not intended as an invitation to buy, sell, or invest in any assets. We encourage readers to conduct their own research and evaluation before making any investment or financial decisions.
hokanews is not responsible for any losses or damages that may arise from the use of information provided on this site. Investment decisions should be based on thorough research and advice from qualified financial advisors. Information on HokaNews may change without notice, and we do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the content published.