Recently, rumors have emerged regarding the "second batch of Unibase (UB) airdrops" on Binance Alpha. The community claims that users need at least about 226 Alpha points to claim approximately 1000 UB on a first-come, first-served basis, and that the point threshold will decrease over time. It is important to emphasize that there has not yet been an official announcement from Binance clearly defining this as the "second batch of Unibase airdrops"; the details of the rules are largely derived from community retellings and second-hand media.
Looking at a longer timeline, the first batch of UB airdrops, which started on September 12, 2025, at 16:00 (UTC+8), had a threshold of 200 Alpha points, allowing users to claim 4000 UB while consuming 15 points; on the same day at 18:30, UB contract trading opened. This combination of "point threshold + airdrop + contract launch" constitutes a model for Alpha's incubation logic. By mid-December, Alpha has been intensively launching new projects, adjusting airdrop thresholds, and delisting poorly performing meme coins on the Solana chain, clearly showing signs of an accelerated "reshuffling" of the ecosystem by the end of the year. The current rumors surrounding another airdrop of UB are more of a multi-party game regarding point value, platform traffic capabilities, and user expectation management.
Core of the Event
The latest round of discussions surrounding Unibase does not start with a brand new official announcement but rather extends and reinterprets the existing timeline. The confirmed fact is that on September 12 at 16:00 (UTC+8), Binance Alpha launched the first batch of UB airdrop activities, with an initial threshold of 200 Alpha points corresponding to a claim limit of 4000 UB, while consuming 15 points, and requiring confirmation within 24 hours; at 18:30 that day, UB contract trading immediately opened, representing a nearly seamless connection between airdrop and trading in the Alpha project.
The recent round of attention has been drawn to what the community and media refer to as the "second batch of UB airdrops" or "new round of UB-related point activities." Some users have mentioned needing at least 225 or 226 Alpha points to exchange for about 1000 UB on a first-come, first-served basis, accompanied by descriptions of "the point threshold decreasing every few minutes, with the amount gradually running out." However, from publicly accessible channels, these key parameters—including the 226 point threshold, 1000 UB limit, and specific decreasing rhythm—are more based on "user feedback screenshots" and "second-hand media reports," and have not formed an official unified explanation with the earlier September activity's historical rules of "200 points/4000 UB/15 points decrease per hour."
The contradictions mainly focus on three points: first, the concept of "second batch" has not been clearly defined in official announcements and is more of a community-generated label; second, the increase in the point threshold from 200 to 225/226 contrasts significantly with the rumor of a decrease in UB claim amount from 4000 to about 1000; third, the claim that the decreasing rhythm is "5 points every 5 minutes" does not match the historical rhythm of "approximately 15 points per hour." These inconsistencies make the current event more akin to a "market game around incomplete information" rather than a clearly defined airdrop activity.
News Aspect: Iterative Logic of Alpha Airdrop Mechanism
Looking back over the year, Binance Alpha's frequent actions in project incubation and incentive mechanisms provide important context for the current UB controversy. In 2025, Alpha has intensively launched various new projects, including ZKP, RTX, and Theoriq, while also launching airdrop activities like Unibase and zkPass, and cleaning up poorly performing projects: for example, delisting 9 meme coins from the Solana chain, 7 of which are from the Solana ecosystem, showing a more aggressive "eliminate the weak and retain the strong" pace.
In terms of airdrop rules, the first batch of UB airdrops in September started with a threshold of 200 points, a limit of 4000 UB, and a consumption of 15 points. As the year-end approached, similar activities have repeatedly mentioned point thresholds in the range of 225–226, accompanied by mechanisms like "dynamic decreasing of claim thresholds" and "time-limited confirmation," forming the core features of a new generation of point rules. This combination of "higher initial point threshold + dynamic decrease + point consumption + confirmation time limit" reflects Alpha's tendency to transition from "broad distribution" to "careful selection," using more complex rules to filter for more active and sticky users.
At the same time, Binance has previously clarified the listing path of "Alpha → Contracts → Spot": projects are first validated for popularity and trading willingness at the Alpha level, then enter the contract market to test liquidity and risk management, and only then have the opportunity to land in the spot market. The completion of "airdrop launch + contract opening" for UB on September 12 indicates its relatively forward position in this path, while whether there will be more batches or forms of incentives in the future will affect the market's judgment on the project party's resource investment and long-term commitment.
From the platform's perspective, raising the point threshold and introducing dynamic rules may serve at least three major goals: first, to increase the cost for opportunistic users, compressing the space for "quick and easy profit-taking"; second, to recycle the previously released dividends through point consumption, freeing up the "point pool" for new incubation projects; third, to guide users to view Alpha points as "long-term interactive assets" rather than one-time vouchers, reinforcing daily participation behaviors (such as completing tasks, participating in activities, holding positions, etc.).
Financial Aspect: Points, UB, and Traffic Redistribution
In the absence of clear price data, it is still possible to roughly reconstruct the flow of funds and attention through the triangular relationship of "points - airdrops - projects." The historical parameters provided by the September UB activity of exchanging 200 points for 4000 UB offer a "hidden valuation reference" for Alpha points: users at that time often estimated the approximate implicit value of each point based on the secondary market price of UB and made decisions on whether to participate and how much to participate accordingly.
If we compare this with the community-reported "225/226 points for 1000 UB" version, we can see two trend signals: first, the number of UB corresponding to each point has significantly decreased compared to the September version, indicating that the platform is more restrained in UB distribution, or intends to reduce subsequent selling pressure; second, the higher point threshold will naturally raise the participation threshold for new users, thereby increasing the relative scarcity of "high-point old users." Under this mechanism, high-point users may gain relatively higher bargaining power and more concentrated incentives during this tightening period at the end of the year, while low-point users are forced to choose between FOMO and opportunity costs.
On a broader scale, from mid-December to now, Alpha has been launching new projects while cleaning up poorly performing projects (including 7 out of 9 meme coins from the Solana chain), effectively redistributing platform resources and user funds by the end of the year: funds need to balance between "incremental incentives for old projects (such as expectations related to UB)" and "new project launch bonuses," as well as "disposal of exit chips for delisted or marginalized projects." This structural squeeze amplifies any rumors about "additional incentives" or "multiple batches of airdrops" as potential signals for the reallocation of funds.
The mass delisting of Solana projects has released an important window from the funding side: unless achieving phenomenal traffic like TRUMP, the survival space for Solana ecosystem projects within the Alpha system may shrink. This means that the "landscape" available for incubation and traffic diversion in Alpha is more concentrated on fewer projects, with projects like Unibase that have already completed the first round of incentives and contract launches naturally positioned at the forefront of attention and resource allocation, and any hints regarding whether there will be more rounds of incentives will be closely scrutinized by funds.
Emotional Aspect: Resonance of FOMO and Skepticism
On the emotional level, three intertwined dimensions can currently be observed. First, the Alpha points airdrop mechanism has indeed sparked widespread participation since September, with activities like UB and zkPass driving user interest in "brushing points" and "snatching quotas," forming a strong FOMO mentality; second, the point consumption and confirmation time limits (such as the 24-hour confirmation window in the September UB activity) have caused some users to hesitate in their operations, worrying that missing confirmation would lead to the loss of rights, and also fearing that consuming points too early would affect better opportunities later; third, the lack of a unified official stance on the current "second batch of UB airdrop" information has led users to repeatedly cross-verify between social media, KOL channels, and second-hand media, further amplifying uncertainty.
At the KOL level, many opinion leaders interpret the Alpha points mechanism as a "continuously upgrading filter." For example, some believe that compared to the September threshold of 200 points, the current 225–226 points entry is more conducive to filtering deep participants, and airdrop thresholds like GUA's 256 points and 15 points consumption are also seen as signals of the platform's "support intensity being proportional to participation thresholds." In contrast, some users view the complexity of the rules and the increase in thresholds as a sign of the platform "tightening benefits," worrying that under conditions of information asymmetry and rapid rule changes, ordinary participants may find it difficult to reasonably price points and airdrop opportunities.
The lack of transparency further amplifies this divergence: when the label "second batch" is first applied by the community, and there is subsequently a lack of a clear official announcement to define the nature of the activity, expectation management can deviate. Some users may position themselves based on the expectation of "multiple rounds of airdrops," and if subsequent facts prove to be merely a "general point activity" or incentives weakly related to UB, it could lead to strong emotional disappointment, inversely suppressing subsequent participation rates and valuations of Alpha points.
Possible turning points in public sentiment can be categorized into three types: first, whether there will be an official announcement with clear parameters and batch explanations that positively responds to keywords like "second batch" and "multiple incentives"; second, whether the UB project itself has hard indicators published regarding technical delivery, ecological cooperation, and user growth, helping the market reassess its value from dimensions beyond incentives; third, whether Alpha will continue its current "high-frequency filtering + strict review" path in the rhythm of launching and delisting new projects.
Bull-Bear Game: Opposing Narratives Surrounding UB and Alpha Mechanisms
The current market divergence surrounding the Unibase and Alpha points mechanism can be summarized as a collision of three perspectives: bullish, bearish, and neutral strategies. The bullish perspective emphasizes the narrative at both the platform and project levels: on one hand, Binance Alpha has continuously launched projects at a high frequency in 2025, adjusted rules, cleaned up poor assets, and publicly reiterated that "Alpha will become increasingly strict," which in the eyes of bulls means that Alpha is evolving from an early "benefit space" into a more mature incubation layer; on the other hand, UB has completed its first batch of airdrops and contract launches, and if there are indeed additional incentives or deeper collaborations in the future, bulls will interpret this as a "signal of increased resource investment and long-term commitment" from the project party.
The bearish perspective, however, focuses more on the potential compression of participant structure and valuation. On one hand, the increase in the point threshold from 200 to 225/226 (according to rumors) and the claim amount of UB decreasing from 4000 to about 1000 suggests that the marginal incentive gained from each point has weakened; on the other hand, the complexity of the rules and information asymmetry may make the originally "simple rules + expected dividends" gameplay difficult to estimate in terms of returns. When the expectation of multiple rounds of airdrops is not confirmed, or the project's fundamental progress falls short of expectations, such disappointment may be projected onto the market pricing of UB and Alpha points. The core of the bull-bear divergence lies not in whether this round of rumors will materialize immediately, but in the mid-term questions of "whether the platform will continue to provide similar intensity of incentives" and "whether these incentives can be supported by the project's fundamentals."
From a neutral or strategic perspective, the focus is placed on "verifiable indicators" rather than emotions or second-hand information. For these participants, the more critical question is: what quantifiable signals can be observed in real-time during each round of Alpha activities? For example: actual participation numbers/account counts, the speed of point consumption, the time it takes for activity quotas to be exhausted, and the trading volume and position structure of UB in the contract market. This data can help them roughly assess the level of funding participation and structure when the rules are not yet fully clear.
Key variables in the outcome of the game include four points: first, whether there will be an official announcement clearly mentioning "subsequent incentive batches for Unibase"; second, whether the UB project itself can iterate technically and expand ecologically at a fast enough pace to support the narrative of multiple rounds of incentives; third, whether Alpha will continue to accelerate the pace of delisting underperforming projects, thereby further increasing the relative scarcity of projects remaining within the system; fourth, whether other new projects will introduce more attractive designs in their point rules, thus creating a competitive relationship for funding and attention with UB-related activities.
Structural Perspective: Mid-term Evolution of the Alpha Ecosystem
By extending the perspective from a single Unibase event, we can more clearly see the long-term framework that the Alpha points economy is attempting to construct. Over the past year, from UB to zkPass, and then to projects like GUA, Alpha has gradually upgraded points from one-time airdrop vouchers to "long-term participation certificates": point acquisition and consumption run through various scenarios such as task completion, activity participation, project voting, and potential new incentives. This means that Alpha is attempting to shape points into a "platform-level asset" to carry user loyalty and long-term interaction, rather than just a short-term red envelope tool.
Corresponding to the project side, from projects like Unibase that have already passed the first round of screening to the delisted Solana chain meme coins, a rough "project survival curve" can be outlined: early on, entry into Alpha can be gained through topicality and short-term traffic, but to remain in the system long-term, continuous data support must be provided in terms of product delivery, user retention, trading activity, and risk control. Projects that cannot prove their value in the contract or spot market, even if they once enjoyed Alpha traffic, may quickly be cleared out.
The user structure is also undergoing re-layering in this process. High-point users often participate continuously in multiple activities, accumulating more than one round of airdrop shares and project chips, making them more sensitive to rule changes and providing them with richer information channels; low-point users, on the other hand, are more likely to be in an opportunistic state of "coming only for a single airdrop," and once the rules become complex or expectations fall short, their willingness to exit is stronger. This differentiation is further amplified in an environment where the point threshold is raised and rules are dynamically reduced at the end of the year.
For other platforms, the strengthening of the Alpha model serves as both a reference sample and competitive pressure: using "points + airdrops + phased listings" to connect user acquisition, project screening, and trading landing is becoming a replicable incubation paradigm. However, to achieve similar effects, a sufficiently strong supply of projects and traffic foundation is required; otherwise, a complex points system will only increase the learning costs for users, making it difficult to truly form network effects.
Outlook: Multi-scenario Simulation and Strategic Reference
In the absence of completely clear official statements, discussions surrounding the future of Unibase and Alpha points can only be built on conditional scenarios. Three representative paths can be attempted to be broken down:
Scenario A: If it is confirmed that there will be a new round of airdrops or incentives directly tied to UB, and the rules are roughly aligned with current community rumors (e.g., higher initial point thresholds + dynamic reductions + first-come, first-served), then the market may conduct a certain degree of "revaluation" of Alpha points. High-point users will still hold a relative advantage in the short term, and UB, as a project with an already launched contract, may gain emotional support from the expectation of "multiple rounds of incentives." However, it is important to note that incentives themselves cannot replace the project's fundamentals; if subsequent product and ecological progress is poor, the risk of multiple rounds of incentives being seen as "overdrafting the future" also exists.
Scenario B: If it turns out that the current activity is merely a general points airdrop arrangement with limited relation to UB, or is just a technical handling of historical activity surplus, then the narrative of the "second batch of UB airdrops" will be partially corrected. In this scenario, the market focus may return to the opportunity distribution of the overall Alpha project pool, with the rotation of funds between new and old projects accelerating, and the premium space for single projects narrowing. For users, interpreting and adapting to the overall evolution of platform rules will be more critical than betting on whether a specific project will have additional batches of incentives.
Scenario C: If the platform significantly tightens the airdrop intensity before or around 2026, placing more emphasis on project fundamental assessments and trading data performance, then the role of Alpha points may further shift from "airdrop exchange vouchers" to "deep participation certificates." The difficulty of acquiring points may increase, and consumption scenarios may become more refined; project parties must present more solid products and ecological progress to gain exposure and incentive budgets at the Alpha level. In this environment, users' expectations for returns from airdrops will need to be significantly adjusted, shifting more from "passively taking advantage" to "actively screening projects + long-term tracking."
In these scenarios, for ordinary participants, more actionable thoughts include: continuously monitoring official Binance announcements and updates on activity details, especially regarding key terms such as point thresholds, consumption rules, and confirmation time limits; paying attention to the trading volume, position structure, and volatility changes of UB and other Alpha projects at the contract level as a reference for funding participation and risk preferences; and clearly understanding their opportunity cost of points before participating, i.e., what potential future opportunities are being forfeited with each point consumed. Regardless of the scenario, making decisions based on factual rules and verifiable data, rather than solely relying on rumors and emotions, will be the basic premise for participating in the Alpha ecosystem.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
