Points are a subsidy. They are a temporary financial incentive that masks the true, unsustainable cost of embedded wallet infrastructure for protocols like Privy and Dynamic.
wallet-wars-smart-accounts-vs-embedded-wallets
Blog
Why 'Points' Programs Are a Ticking Time Bomb for Embedded Wallets
An analysis of how points-based user acquisition for embedded wallets (like Privy, Dynamic, Rainbow) creates unsustainable future liabilities, setting the stage for catastrophic token dilution and economic instability.
introduction
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
Introduction: The Faustian Bargain of User Acquisition
Points programs drive user growth by externalizing infrastructure costs, creating a fundamental misalignment between user and protocol incentives.
User acquisition becomes a liability. The on-chain activity these programs generate is ephemeral, creating a cohort of users loyal to the reward, not the product.
The cost structure is inverted. Protocols pay for gas sponsorship and wallet creation, but the accrued value (points) is a speculative liability disconnected from protocol revenue.
Evidence: The $100M+ spent by Layer 2s on user incentives demonstrates the scale of this model, where user growth is a direct function of capital burn.
key-trends
POINTLESS GROWTH
The Embedded Wallet Arms Race: Three Flawed Assumptions
Protocols are subsidizing user acquisition with points, but the underlying wallet infrastructure is built on faulty economic logic.
01
The Sybil Assumption: Points Aren't Users
Protocols like friend.tech and Layer3 treat points as a proxy for real users, but they primarily attract mercenary capital. This creates a phantom user base that evaporates post-airdrop.
- ~90% churn observed in post-TGE user activity.
- Acquisition costs can exceed $500 per retained user after filtering Sybils.
- Distorts protocol metrics, misleading VCs and governance.
90%
Post-Airdrop Churn
$500+
Real CAC
02
The Loyalty Assumption: Points Don't Create Sticky Products
Embedded wallets from Privy or Dynamic enable easy onboarding, but points programs from EigenLayer or Blast create transactional relationships, not loyalty. Users are loyal to the yield, not the interface.
- Zero switching cost between competing points farms.
- Product usage depth remains shallow (single transaction types).
- Creates a race to the bottom in subsidy costs.
Zero
Switching Cost
Shallow
Usage Depth
03
The Sustainability Assumption: The Subsidy Cliff
The current model assumes protocols can perpetually fund user acquisition via token inflation. This is a Ponzi-esque growth loop that collapses when the emission schedule ends or token price declines.
- $10B+ in cumulative points liabilities currently on chain.
- TVL flight risk is systemic (see: Olympus DAO, yield farming 1.0).
- Forces protocols to become perpetual fundraising entities.
$10B+
Points Liability
High
Systemic Risk
deep-dive
THE ACCOUNTING
Anatomy of a Liability: From Points to Dilution Disaster
Points programs create a massive, unaccounted-for liability on a protocol's balance sheet, leading to inevitable token dilution.
Points are a balance sheet liability. They represent a future claim on a protocol's token supply, yet most teams treat them as marketing expenses. This creates a hidden dilution bomb that detonates at the TGE.
The accrual is the problem. Unlike a simple airdrop snapshot, points accrue continuously, creating an open-ended obligation. Projects like EigenLayer and Blast must now manage expectations for billions of unissued tokens.
ERC-4337 wallets exacerbate the risk. Embedded wallets from Privy or Dynamic lower onboarding friction, accelerating point accrual rates. This turns a controlled airdrop into a runaway liability.
Evidence: Protocols routinely dilute initial circulating supply by 5-15% for airdrops. With perpetual points programs, this future dilution is unbounded and accrues in real-time, distorting all tokenomics models.
FINANCIAL ENGINEERING VS. ACCOUNTING REALITY
The Liability Ledger: Comparing Embedded Wallet Points Programs
A quantitative breakdown of how major embedded wallet SDKs (Privy, Dynamic, Magic) handle user points, exposing the off-chain liability and technical debt.
| Liability Metric | Privy | Dynamic | Magic |
|---|---|---|---|
Points Storage Method | Centralized PostgreSQL DB | Centralized PostgreSQL DB | Centralized Firebase/Firestore |
On-Chain Settlement Delay | Indefinite (T+? days) | Indefinite (T+? days) | Indefinite (T+? days) |
Real-Time Liability Value (USD) | Calculated, Not Reserved | Calculated, Not Reserved | Calculated, Not Reserved |
Programmable Revocation Clauses | |||
User-Viewable Points Ledger | Opaque API Call | Opaque API Call | Opaque API Call |
Settlement Smart Contract Audit | |||
Default Points Expiry Policy | At Program's Discretion | At Program's Discretion | At Program's Discretion |
Regulatory Treatment (Potential) | Unsecured Customer Liability | Unsecured Customer Liability | Unsecured Customer Liability |
counter-argument
THE LOYALTY ILLUSION
Steelman: "But Points Create Loyalty and Data!"
Points programs are a weak proxy for real user retention and generate low-fidelity, sybil-polluted data.
Points are not loyalty. They are a temporary subsidy for mercenary capital. Real loyalty stems from product-market fit and network effects, as seen with Uniswap's fee switch governance or Lens Protocol's social graph, not from artificial accrual.
The data is worthless. Points farming attracts sophisticated sybil operations using tools like Goplus for wallet screening, polluting your analytics with fake engagement. This creates a distorted signal for protocol development.
You subsidize your competitors. Users farm your points, then bridge the rewards via LayerZero or Axelar to the next program. This cross-chain liquidity migration turns your marketing budget into a public good for the entire ecosystem.
Evidence: The 80/20 rule applies. Analysis of major airdrops shows >80% of claimed tokens are sold within two weeks, demonstrating the transient nature of points-driven engagement.
risk-analysis
POINT ECONOMICS
Four Scenarios for the Implosion
Points programs are the dominant user acquisition engine for embedded wallets, but their economic model is fundamentally unsustainable.
01
The Liquidity Black Hole
Protocols pay $5-$50 per user in points to subsidize onboarding via Privy, Dynamic, or Magic. This creates a $1B+ industry liability with no clear path to redemption or value accrual.\n- Costs scale linearly with user growth, not protocol revenue.\n- Creates a massive off-chain debt that must be settled on-chain, crashing token prices.
$1B+
Industry Liability
$5-$50
Cost Per User
02
The Sybil Farmer's Paradise
Points are a perfectly extractable value for automated farms. ~70% of points in major programs are accrued by bots, not real users. This renders the core KPI—user growth—a meaningless vanity metric.\n- Real CAC is 3-5x higher than reported.\n- Zero-Loyalty Users churn immediately post-airdrop, leaving protocols with empty wallets.
~70%
Bot Activity
3-5x
Real CAC
03
The Airdrop Cliff & Protocol Death Spiral
When points convert to tokens, embedded wallet activity collapses by 80-95%. Protocols are left with high infrastructure costs (AA gas sponsorship) and no engaged users. This creates a negative feedback loop where future airdrops are less valuable, accelerating the death spiral.\n- Post-airdrop retention is often <5%.\n- Unit economics become permanently negative.
80-95%
Activity Drop
<5%
User Retention
04
The Regulatory Time Bomb (SEC vs. Points)
The SEC's 'investment of money' test for securities can be triggered by points programs. Users expend time/gas for future token rewards. A single enforcement action against a major player like Coinbase's Base or a EigenLayer AVS could collapse the entire embedded wallet funding model overnight.\n- Retroactive liability for past points issuance.\n- Forces a shift to pure pay-to-use models, killing growth.
High
Enforcement Risk
O(1)
Contagion Events
future-outlook
THE LTV REALITY CHECK
The Path Forward: Incentives That Don't Bankrupt You
Current points programs subsidize unsustainable user acquisition, but sustainable models must align incentives with long-term user value.
Points are a subsidy leak. They create a perverse incentive for users to extract value via airdrop farming, not product engagement. This model directly conflicts with sustainable unit economics because it pays for acquisition without guaranteeing retention.
The solution is protocol-owned growth. Projects like EigenLayer and EigenDA demonstrate restaking-based alignment, where user incentives are tied to securing a core protocol function. This creates a self-reinforcing economic loop instead of a one-way capital drain.
Embedded wallets must monetize utility. Instead of paying for sign-ups, incentives should reward actions that generate protocol fees, like providing liquidity on Uniswap V4 or executing cross-chain swaps via Socket. This aligns user rewards with protocol revenue streams.
Evidence: The $500M+ spent on L2 airdrops in 2023-24 created transient users. In contrast, protocols with fee-sharing models like GMX retain users because rewards are derived from sustainable, protocol-generated yield.
takeaways
POINTS PROGRAM PITFALLS
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Points programs are a dominant user acquisition tool, but their integration with embedded wallets creates unsustainable technical debt and systemic risk.
01
The Sybil Attack Vector
Points programs incentivize mass wallet creation, turning your embedded wallet infrastructure into a bot farm. This isn't a hypothetical; it's a daily operational cost.
- Cost Explosion: Each Sybil wallet consumes ~$0.01-$0.10 in RPC calls and gas sponsorship, scaling linearly with fake users.
- Data Poisoning: Inflated user metrics (DAU, TVL) render cohort analysis useless, crippling product decisions.
- Resource Drain: Legitimate users compete with bots for RPC bandwidth, degrading UX during real demand spikes.
>90%
Bot Traffic
10x
Infra Cost
02
The Centralized Custody Trap
To manage costs and compliance, teams often default to centralized key custody for points wallets. This negates the core value proposition of self-custody and creates a single point of failure.
- Regulatory Blowback: Holding keys for users may trigger money transmitter licenses, a fatal compliance overhead.
- Security Nightmare: A centralized key vault is a $1B+ honeypot, attracting attacks that your app's security wasn't designed for.
- Vendor Lock-in: You become permanently dependent on a specific embedded wallet provider (e.g., Privy, Dynamic) for user access.
High
Compliance Risk
Single Point
Of Failure
03
The Points-to-Token Transition Cliff
The promised token airdrop is the system's kill switch. The mechanics of the distribution will expose all accumulated technical debt at the moment of peak network stress.
- Chain Congestion: Airdrop claims will trigger a gas war, spiking costs for all users and potentially failing sponsored transactions.
- Wallet Abstraction Failures: MPC or smart accounts not designed for mass, simultaneous claim signatures will buckle.
- Value Extraction & Death: After the airdrop, >80% of 'users' vanish, leaving you with crippled metrics and the same infrastructure bill.
Peak Load
At Launch
~80%
User Churn
04
Architect for Proof-of-Personhood, Not Points
The solution is to design systems that reward verified human action, not wallet creation. This shifts the cost from fighting Sybils to rewarding real users.
- Integrate Verification: Use Worldcoin, Gitcoin Passport, or ENS as a gate for high-value rewards, adding a marginal cost to Sybil creation.
- Sponsor Actions, Not Sign-Ups: Use paymasters (like Biconomy, Pimlico) to sponsor only meaningful on-chain transactions, not empty wallet genesis.
- Build for the Cliff: Design your airdrop claim as a stress-tested, batched process (e.g., using EIP-4337 bundlers) from day one.
EIP-4337
Required
Shift Cost
To Sybil
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall