On March 23, 2026, Backpack completed the token $BP TGE, which was supposed to be a highlight moment where the project's narrative and community expectations were concentrated, yet it quickly evolved into a trust crisis within a few days. The focus of the controversy surrounding this TGE soon gathered around three levels: whether the team secretly cashed out through OTC trading, whether the token distribution deviated from "fair" expectations, and whether the identification and handling of the witch attack were too aggressive. On March 27, founder Armani Ferrante rarely spoke out forcefully, responding to doubts point by point, denying OTC cash-out, explaining the rights design for Mad Lads holders and the logic behind witch handling, and repeatedly emphasizing the long-term value orientation of "if the token fails, the team will not benefit." However, in a public opinion arena where emotions had already been amplified, the project team's long-term narrative collided with many participants' view of the TGE as a short-term cash-out window, marking the beginning of a trust defense offensive.

From Celebration to Doubt: The Emotional Turn in the Four Days After TGE

Looking at the timeline, after the TGE on March 23, $BP initially attracted high attention and high volatility, with its price volatility becoming the primary background for community discussions. As short-term speculation gradually heated up, discussions on social media about "whether the distribution meets expectations" and "whether points are redeeming at a loss" increased between the 24th and 25th, with emotions shifting from simply watching the market to questioning rules and distribution mechanisms. By March 26 and 27, doubts erupted, with the topic evolving from "this TGE is not appealing" to "is the team profiting behind the scenes," and the emotional tone noticeably shifted from excitement to dissatisfaction and defensiveness.

The main accusations against Backpack gradually took shape during these days: first, some community members suspected the team was cashing out tokens in advance through OTC, questioning the lack of transparency in arrangements between the team and external funds; second, there was a significant expectation gap regarding airdrops and point exchanges, with many players believing their actual gains as early users or Mad Lads holders were lower than previously circulated community expectations; third, how points converted into tokens and how different user groups were prioritized for distribution lacked sufficient clarity in data disclosure, leading to perceptions of "redemption opacity."

On a macro level, the crypto market faced overall pressure in late March, coupled with tightening external liquidity, making funds more conservative. In this environment, any clues related to "team profitability" or "unfair distribution" would be emotionally amplified. The controversy surrounding Backpack was not an isolated incident but situated within a longer risk appetite retreat curve. Comparing with other recent TGE projects, many new tokens were treated as short-term arbitrage targets after launch, with some funds' core objectives being to cash out quickly and reduce holding risk. Although Backpack's product and brand narrative emphasized long-term construction, it was still incorporated by many participants into this standard short-term rhythm of "getting in—pumping up—selling out," laying the groundwork for subsequent emotional turns.

OTC Cash-Out Storm: The Boundary Denied by the Founder

Among all accusations, "did the team cash out tokens through OTC" was the most damaging. On March 27, Armani explicitly stated in a public response that the team did not cash out tokens through OTC and emphasized that there were no opaque arrangements. His argument primarily rested on the incentive structure: the unlock pace of tokens held by the team was linked to the project's long-term performance, and if the tokens failed overall or the market value remained sluggish, the team itself would also not gain substantial benefits. In his words, "the team incentives are deeply tied to the long-term success of the token; if the token fails, the team will not benefit."

However, the community's suspicion did not dissipate immediately with this denial. The reason lies in the team’s token holding and future unlocking being highly sensitive topics, especially during periods of severe price volatility, where any speculation about "who holds a substantial amount of tokens and who can cash out early" naturally targets the team. Some users were not concerned with complex unlock curve designs but instead used a more direct logical deduction—"if the team holds a large amount of tokens, there must be motives and opportunities to cash out early." This type of suspicion based on structural asymmetry is difficult to dispel with a simple "no OTC."

Armani's argument that "if the token fails, the team also cannot benefit" attempted to illustrate that the project party and the token's long-term performance are a unified fate community. This logic stands in traditional startup contexts: equity value highly depends on the company's long-term growth, and short-term arbitrage is not profitable for founders. However, in the Web3 context, token prices have high liquidity and strong volatility in the early stages, and the founding team theoretically has various cash-out paths at different stages. Without verifiable on-chain evidence of transparency, merely relying on verbal clarifications is challenging to overcome the community's imagination of "potential early profit opportunities."

In the Web3 public opinion arena, the difficulty of "proving innocence" is exceptionally high. Without clear on-chain transaction paths displayed, and without public audits of team addresses and fund flows, any denial statements are easily seen as "just words." Trust is not built by a single announcement but through a series of verifiable data points regarding fund flows, address tagging, and lock-up arrangements that stack up. What Backpack faced in this wave of controversy was the inherent limit of verbal commitments in the absence of supporting transparent mechanisms.

The Allocation of Mad Lads Holders and the Swing of Witch Governance

In terms of distribution, Mad Lads holders are naturally viewed as "deep users" of the Backpack ecosystem, and the project party indeed designed tiered rights and priorities around this group. According to Armani's public explanation, the Mad Lads identity holds a relatively high priority within the entire distribution system, adding other behaviors and contribution dimensions, forming one of the key factors for users to obtain $BP allocations. This line of thought essentially attempts to bind early community assets with long-term contributions, leveraging this "old user group" of NFT holders to take on more initial chips.

However, what truly ignited dissatisfaction was the information gap and word-of-mouth expectations. Before the official release of specific models and data, various estimates about "how much tokens Mad Lads holders could obtain" and "what the point exchange ratio roughly is" had already circulated within the community. When the actual distribution results came out, many people calculated their received amounts based on their wallets, discovering a significant gap between these and the previously spread "consensus expectations" in group chats and Twitter, naturally pointing fingers at "distribution opacity" and "the official did not clarify in advance." As the research brief also indicated, the specific number of Mad Lads holders receiving tokens and the point exchange coefficients currently lack official precise conclusions, making disputes about the amount itself inevitable.

The identification and handling of witch attacks are another highly sensitive point. To prevent a large number of bot addresses and mass-registered accounts from abusing airdrops, Backpack initially implemented a relatively strict witch identification strategy, applying a "one-size-fits-all" approach to tighten or cancel distributions to suspected witch addresses. This practice can be understood on a design level as maintaining the rights of real users and protecting the quality of early token distributions, but it quickly faced accusations of "misclassification"—many participants who considered themselves real users found themselves categorized as witches or severely downgraded, believing the project was too harsh and did not provide adequate channels for appeal and reassessment for those wronged.

Under pressure, the project began to adjust witch handling strategies, softening the initial hardline stance. This included reconsidering some witch labels, providing users with channels for appeal or secondary verification, and making certain adjustments in weight restoration and reward appraisal, revealing the project's difficult sway between "preventing sybil attacks" and "avoiding wrongful judgments." Backpack attempted to iterate the rules continuously, seeking to restore a sense of fairness while ensuring distribution quality, but in the high-density, fast-dispersing Web3 community, any correction is easily interpreted as "admitting the initial mistake," exacerbating external doubts about its initial judgment standards and execution transparency.

Staking and Lock-up Design: The Game and Misinterpretation in a 7-Day Window

Regarding the design of token liquidity, Backpack set up a staking framework for $BP that includes 7 days of flexible period + 7 days of unbinding period. Simply put, this means that holders can flexibly adjust their positions within the first 7 days after staking, but once they choose to unbind, they need to wait for an additional 7 days to fully unlock their chips. The project's original intention was to provide basic liquidity while encouraging more long-term holding and staking behaviors through a time cost to avoid an immediate outpouring of funds and a cliff-like collapse in price after TGE.

From a mechanism perspective, this design attempts to balance two goals: on one hand, the lock-up cannot be too rigid, or it will directly scare off liquidity providers who need flexibility; on the other hand, it aims to allow genuine long-term value supporters to obtain higher voice or potential gains through staking. In an ideal scenario, the 7+7 structure can buffer selling pressure rhythms, allowing the market time to digest changes in chips and form a smoother price curve.

However, in the actual participant structure, short-term players often decompose any mechanisms into a profit-taking rhythm. For these funds, the 7-day flexible period of staking is seen as a trial-and-error window to observe market sentiment and price trends, while the 7-day unbinding period becomes part of their decision-making model: "When to start unbinding" and "how to stagger the release of selling pressure." The team’s narrative of "binding long-term supporters through lock-up" is viewed more as a variable that restricts the flow of tokens and needs to be quantified and exploited rather than a recognition of value consensus.

Given the current backdrop of market turbulence and macro tightening, the impact of lock-up design on the stability of tokens and selling pressure rhythm becomes even more sensitive. When overall liquidity tightens and risk appetite decreases, even a relatively mild lock-in and unbinding mechanism can be interpreted as increasing the short-term outflow difficulty, prompting some funds to choose to sell out earlier or not participate in staking at all. Backpack hopes to extend the average holding period of chips through mechanisms, but when the external environment does not cooperate, the lock-up arrangements can also paradoxically become a source of new distrust—especially in the emotional context where the project has already been embroiled in distribution and OTC controversies.

Long-termism Narrative Collides with Short-term Expectations

Throughout the storm, the core logic that Armani continuously emphasized was “if the token fails, the team will not benefit.” This statement not only responds to OTC doubts but also attempts to establish a narrative framework of long-term value for Backpack: the team's economic return arises from years of product iteration, ecosystem expansion, and sustainable increases in token market value, rather than from short-term cashing out at the TGE moment. Through this binding relationship, he hopes to convey a message to the community—founders stand on the same front as long-term holders, and short-term price fluctuations are merely process noise.

In stark contrast, some participants hold the view that TGE is the primary cash-out window. In the experiences of many speculators, activities such as participation in testing, interactions, point tasks, and holding NFTs essentially serve as a form of “advanced investment of time and risk,” while obtaining tradable tokens at TGE is a settlement for those inputs. The higher the price, the more tokens unlocked, and the greater the selling liquidity, the quicker they can recover costs and gain premiums. In this mentality, any design that delays cashing out (lock-up) or any distribution result viewed as "downgrade" will be seen as a form of “withholding” on their contributions.

This highlights a key concept in Web3 project governance: commitment credibility. Verbal commitments emphasize subjective willingness—founders' "desire" to stand with users; while mechanism commitments emphasize objective constraints—even if founders change their minds midway, the system makes it difficult to deviate from the binding of long-term interests. The former can be frequently reiterated through AMAs, tweets, and announcements, while the latter requires verifiable arrangements in token economic models, lock-up structures, on-chain permissions, and fund flows. Currently, Backpack displays a strong long-termism rhetoric, but to what extent mechanisms have restricted the team’s short-term cashing out space and how to concretize the interest binding on-chain remain key points of inquiry for the community.

This round of controversy for Backpack also laid bare the cognitive divergence of "who is working for whom." For some deep users, they want to see that their early use, feedback, and companionship are clearly counted in the “dividend logic of project success,” rather than treated as one-time traffic and KPIs. For short-term funds, as long as they can achieve considerable gains around TGE, they can accept how the project unfolds thereafter. If the project party does not clearly distinguish these groups in terms of incentive design and communication, making long-term contributors feel they are treated the same as speculative funds, the trust crisis can easily escalate from "distribution dissatisfaction" to "narrative bankruptcy."

After the Storm: Backpack's Repair Route and Industry Reflection

From a brand and ecosystem perspective, this round of TGE controversy undoubtedly impacts Backpack's image. In the short term, negative discussions around OTC, distribution, and witch handling will diminish the project’s “benchmark” halo in the broader public chain ecosystem and may lead to a discount on $BP’s mid-to-short-term price performance—some users who could have become steadfast holders might choose to wait and see or even exit. In the medium to long term, the key lies in whether the project can transform this storm into an opportunity for governance and transparency upgrades: if within months or even longer, it can continuously deliver on product progress, ecosystem building, and value capture, the noise from the TGE phase might gradually be revalued as “growing pains.”

To rebuild trust, Backpack needs to make more substantive improvements in transparency, data disclosure, and witch governance. For example, without compromising security boundaries, as much as possible, publicly disclose on-chain data related to team and foundation addresses, lock-up and unlocking rhythms, and main distribution paths, allowing external analysts to review and cross-verify; in witch identification, shift from "one-time labeling" to a governance process that is "appealable and iterative," replacing rough rules with more granular metrics and explaining the principles and trade-offs of risk control models to the community in advance. By embedding more rules in contracts, public documents, and verifiable dashboards, increasing the "irreversibility" of commitments, there will be opportunities to gradually elevate the credibility of commitments.

In an environment characterized by tightening macro-liquidity and declining risk appetite, if Backpack wishes to lock in genuine long-term supporters, it can no longer primarily rely on the verbal narrative of "we are long-termists" but must distinguish through mechanism design: for instance, giving more weight to behaviors like continued participation in protocol usage, providing liquidity, and governance voting to make the model of short-term cashing out from aairdrops difficult to replicate previous gains; simultaneously retaining enough upward space for long-term companions in token release and incentive curves, enabling those willing to bear cyclical fluctuations to see a redeemable future rather than being discouraged in the first round of storm.

More importantly, this storm serves as a mirror for the entire Web3 industry—TGE is never just a simple token issuance moment, but a public stress test on governance and trust. Beneath the surface debates on price fluctuations, distribution details, and witch handling lies the real examination: does the project use mechanisms to bind itself and the community on the same boat, is it willing to give up part of the "comfortable zone of not being questioned" in information disclosure, and can it continuously attract and retain those who genuinely believe in long-term value amidst the clamor of short-term speculation. What Backpack went through is merely a slice in this collective examination of the industry, and the quality of the answers will ultimately reflect in the on-chain data and ecological vitality after a prolonged period.

Join our community, let's 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。