InitiaVIP is Initia’s built-in incentive mechanism that weaves the Interwoven Economy into a unified structure. Built-in incentives refer to mechanisms embedded at the chain level, designed to operate incentives in a way that enhances sustainability, maintains alignment with the network’s architecture, and promotes continuous ecosystem participation.
Compared to traditional incentive models such as those used by Optimism or Berachain, VIP distinguishes itself through performance-based allocation, user behavior-driven distribution, and a programmatic grant structure. This ensures transparency and predictability, enabling both users and builders to design long-term participation strategies.
VIP allows early-stage appchains to bootstrap traffic and design incentive loops without excessive resource consumption. In Stage 1, Interwoven Rollups received an average of 6,216 INIT in VIP rewards, and Kamigotchi surpassed 1M transactions within just two weeks of launch, demonstrating VIP’s efficacy in generating early traction.
More than a simple reward distribution system, VIP functions as Initia’s embedded economic framework. It is designed so that the pursuit of incentives by each participant directly contributes to ecosystem-wide growth. As VIP operates, rollups are activated, INIT demand increases, and the INIT economy, in turn, incentivizes further activity from users and rollups, creating a self-reinforcing flywheel.
Can VIP's built-in incentives replace the traditional airdrop playbook? At the very least, VIP reframes incentive design around the efficient allocation of resources by shifting the focus from how much to distribute to how to distribute it. This shift marks a potential inflection point in incentive mechanism design, one that is likely to be validated through the co-growth of Initia’s Interwoven Rollups and its broader ecosystem.
The "Prisoner's Dilemma" is a well-known concept used to explain game theory. In this scenario, two prisoners must each decide whether to betray the other or remain silent, with the outcome of their decision depending on what the other chooses. For example, if both stay silent, they receive reduced sentences. However, if one betrays while the other cooperates, the cooperating prisoner faces a five-year sentence. Each prisoner tries to predict the other's choice to achieve a better outcome. Game theory, in essence, analyzes how individuals make decisions to maximize their own benefit while considering the choices of others.
But what if we wanted to encourage the two prisoners to cooperate? The key lies in redesigning the rules and incentive structure so that cooperation becomes the most beneficial option. For instance, if the game is repeated with the same partner, betrayal in one round leads to retaliation in the next, potentially making cooperation the optimal long-term strategy. This approach, in which the rules of a game are designed based on how participants are expected to behave in order to maximize their own benefit, is called mechanism design or reverse game theory.
In blockchain ecosystems, mechanism design plays a crucial role, especially in shaping incentive structures that influence app growth, user acquisition, engagement, and retention. Yet most incentive models focus solely on how much to distribute, overlooking the equally important question of how to distribute. Even with the same amount of incentive, different distribution methods can produce vastly different outcomes.
Initia’s VIP (Vested Interest Program), which introduces a form of Built-in Incentives, exemplifies how mechanism design can be applied effectively. VIP enables appchains to design long-term growth strategies by using incentives based on user behavior. It also offers transparent grants distributed according to performance, helping teams secure runway before revenue generation. At the same time, users receive ongoing rewards through chain-native mechanisms, which sustain their participation in the Initia ecosystem. Ultimately, VIP creates a positive feedback loop: the growth of appchains fuels the network’s growth, and in turn, the network’s growth empowers appchains.
If you are a builder considering launching an appchain on Initia, searching for a suitable network, or simply interested in understanding how VIP works, this article is for you. In the following sections, we will examine the limitations of traditional airdrop strategies, explore why built-in incentives offer a more sustainable alternative, and analyze how Initia’s VIP differs from models like Optimism and Berachain.
For a broader technical overview of Initia and its appchain ecosystem, refer to our previous article: “Initia: Entering the Multichain Garden of Eden”.
Airdrops are now a well-established playbook in crypto. Whether it’s for acquiring new users, retention, liquidity mining, or token distribution, airdrops are often the primary reason users engage with new projects and remain the most convenient bootstrapping method for projects in their early stages.
However, the effectiveness of this strategy has increasingly come into question. Traditional airdrop models are showing clear limitations. In most cases, they fail to establish sustainable incentive loops and ultimately lead to the depletion of incentive resources. Especially for Layer 1 and Layer 2 networks, airdrops may serve as a starting point, but once distributions end, interest in the project quickly fades. Many chains lose momentum and are labeled as "airdrop chains."
One of the most common scenarios is user exodus following a TGE airdrop. Once users receive rewards, they have no reason to remain on the chain. The inability of one-time airdrops to drive long-term growth has been repeatedly demonstrated and highlights the structural flaw in front-loading all incentives at launch. This can be explained in two primary ways:
First, excessive early rewards raise user expectations while depleting incentive resources from the start. Following the successful TGE airdrop of Hyperliquid, allocating large portions of token supply to airdrops has become a common playbook. But unless the chain is an exceptional case like Hyperliquid, which already achieved product-market fit, such strategies rarely succeed in establishing lasting user bases. Instead, early rewards raise expectations while leaving no resources to offer further incentives.
Second, declining rewards relative to the initial reference point drive user departure. Users are more sensitive to the rate and direction of change in rewards than to their absolute amount. Regardless of size, if rewards are increasing or at least holding steady, users are incentivized to stay. But once rewards begin to drop or cease entirely, users feel more compelled to leave than to remain.
These structural limitations of TGE-based airdrops point to several takeaways:
Excessive early rewards inflate user expectations while leaving the chain with depleted incentive resources.
→ The distribution model must shift from front-loading incentives to redesigning the way rewards are allocated.
Users respond more strongly to changes in reward direction and speed than to absolute values.
→ A design focused on sustained or gradually increasing incentives may be more effective than one-off rewards.
To address these shortcomings, many projects have introduced seasonal or ongoing airdrop models, where continued participation leads to rewards over time. This model moves beyond one-time expenditure and has shown some effectiveness in enhancing incentive sustainability. For example, Optimism, which launched its mainnet in December 2021, continued to distribute rewards through Airdrop Season 5 as late as October 2024, compensating users and builders who actively contributed to the Superchain. Other projects such as Blast, Ethena, and Jupiter have also implemented seasonal incentive models.
However, while seasonal incentives appear more sustainable, they struggle to foster motivations beyond rewards. With unclear criteria, users often cannot predict how their actions translate to rewards, and ambiguous timing turns incentives into speculative bets on future payouts. In this structure, where causality between behavior and reward is lacking, users' motivation to stay weakens. The result is a repeated cycle of short-term metric optimization. Beyond offering more distribution windows than one-off incentives, seasonal programs still fail to produce lasting ecosystem growth.
Initia addresses this with VIP, a mechanism that distributes rewards automatically based on predefined criteria and schedules. Since both the distribution logic and timing are encoded at the chain level without external intervention, VIP stands apart from conventional incentive models. Incentives in VIP are not intermittent events but part of the chain’s built-in logic, a model best described as built-in incentives.
The value of built-in incentives lies in two key advantages over traditional models: predictability and alignment with the chain.
Predictability: Built-in incentives clearly define when, why, and how rewards are distributed. This makes the system transparent and reliable, encouraging continued user participation. While early rewards drive initial engagement, ecosystems mature over time. Users gradually find other reasons to stay, such as a stable user experience, institutional adoption, strong community ties, and long-term capital lock-up. Built-in incentives increase the likelihood that these motivations emerge organically, supporting long-term sustainability.
Alignment with the chain: Built-in incentives are not isolated events but mechanisms aligned with the architecture, direction, and tokenomics of the chain. For example, in Initia’s appchain-centric modular structure, VIP strengthens economic ties between layers and fosters both competition and collaboration among rollups. It reduces fragmentation and coordinates the entire network into a unified economic system. Unlike generic incentive designs, built-in models can be customized to align with a network’s specific architectural goals, enhancing capital efficiency.
The benefits of built-in incentives can be summarized as follows:
Users: When users can clearly understand the function linking their actions to rewards, they can plan long-term strategies based on consistent criteria. This shifts participation from short-term engagement to sustained involvement.
Builders: Built-in incentives provide builders with defined reward logic and consistent streams of support. Unlike grant models that rely on discretionary decisions, builders can access rewards based on onchain rules and epoch structures. This enables a more stable foundation for long-term appchain development.
Networks: Built-in incentives are not occasional campaigns but integral economic systems. They align closely with the chain’s architecture, direction, and tokenomics. Just as VIP integrates fragmented appchains into a single economy, built-in incentives enable optimized designs and long-term convergence of stakeholder interests across the ecosystem.
In the next section, we’ll explore how VIP reconstructs reward distribution, frequency, and incentive gradients through its built-in incentive design.
Initia builds a multichain ecosystem composed of a Layer 1 and application-specific rollups called Interwoven Rollups. The relationship between Layer 1 and Layer 2 is not strictly hierarchical. Rather, these chains are tightly connected through chain-level incentives, enshrined liquidity, and interoperability infrastructure. Appchains retain independent execution environments while sharing liquidity and user bases, enabling sustainable growth across the network. Initia envisions a multichain ecosystem where appchains coexist with distinct purposes and seamlessly interoperate as a single network.
A multichain ecosystem of this kind requires a purpose-built economic system. VIP serves as the foundation for this system. The following sections explore how VIP operates across three stages: allocation, distribution, and unlock.
VIP allocates 25% of INIT’s total supply as ecosystem incentives, distributed every two weeks per stage to qualified Interwoven Rollups and users. This allocation is designed to span several years, and key parameters such as the distribution cycle and volume may be adjusted through governance to reflect the state of the ecosystem.
3.1.1 Balance Pool and Weight Pool
VIP rewards are allocated across two pools: the Balance Pool and the Weight Pool. The ratio between these two pools is defined at the start of each stage.
Balance Pool
The Balance Pool distributes rewards based on the amount of INIT locked on each rollup. Specifically, at the end of each stage, rewards are allocated in proportion to the INIT held in the Opinit bridge address of each rollup relative to the total bridged INIT across all rollups.
This mechanism encourages rollups to create new use cases for INIT. For example, Intergaze uses INIT as the base currency for NFT minting, while Inertia and Echelon offer attractive deposit yields on INIT collateral in their lending markets. As a result, the Balance Pool directly incentivizes rollup activity and serves as a key mechanism for increasing demand for INIT.
Weight Pool
Source: Initia
The Weight Pool distributes rewards based on gauge voting conducted during each stage. Users who stake INIT through Initia’s enshrined liquidity mechanism receive voting power proportional to their staked positions and can participate in the gauge vote. The voting results at the end of the stage determine how rewards are allocated among rollups.
This process allows INIT stakeholders to directly influence how incentives are distributed. Instead of relying on equal or arbitrary distributions, the Weight Pool ensures that rewards are concentrated on rollups with the highest demand or contributions to the ecosystem.
Furthermore, the gauge voting system enables the emergence of a bribe-driven governance layer. Cabal, the primary bribe protocol on Initia, offers users optimized yields by leveraging their staked positions and acquiring governance power. Rollups seeking to increase their share of Weight Pool rewards provide bribes to Cabal, which are then redistributed to xINIT holders. This structure strengthens the incentive loop and encourages active political-economic coordination within the ecosystem.
How incentives are distributed can have a greater impact than how much is distributed. VIP has been carefully designed to ensure that allocation mechanisms do not lead to inefficient or wasteful use of resources.
3.2.1 VIP Score: Behavior-Based Incentives for Users
Source: Initia Docs
VIP rewards are not sent directly to users. Instead, they are first allocated to rollups, which then redistribute the rewards based on pre-defined scoring criteria. Each rollup sets its own criteria for how user actions translate into VIP rewards, allowing for tailored incentive strategies aligned with each rollup’s growth model.
For example, Inertia scores lending and borrowing activity, while Rena assigns value to verifiable AI inference data. These criteria enable flexible and strategic incentive design, moving beyond fixed metrics like transaction volume or deposit size.
The following are the scoring criteria for selected rollups during Stage 1:
Source: Initia
Inertia: Lending or borrowing INIT or esINIT through Inertia Lending
MilkyWay: Bridging INIT to MilkyWay and staking it in the liquid staking module
Intergaze: Trading NFTs on the Intergaze marketplace
Civitia: Proportional esINIT rewards based on SILVER accumulated during the epoch
Yominet: Burning in-game VIPP tokens to convert into VIP score
3.2.2 Operator Commission: Programmatic Builder Grants
Source: Initia Docs
Part of the VIP reward pool is distributed to rollup operators to ensure they remain incentivized to maintain network activity. This functions similarly to a builder grant but is implemented in a more transparent and programmable format.
Each operator defines a commission rate at the beginning of the stage. That rate determines what portion of the rollup’s allocated VIP rewards is retained by the operator. The rest is distributed to users based on the rollup’s VIP score logic. The commission setting and its changes are publicly visible, allowing users to make informed decisions when participating in gauge voting.
Operators can strategically adjust their commission rates. A high commission may signal low user reward allocation, while a 0% commission can foster positive sentiment and attract gauge votes. Because this mechanism is transparent and aligned with user choice, it replaces opaque grant programs with a dynamic and permissionless reward structure.
All VIP rewards are distributed in the form of esINIT, an escrowed version of INIT. Users can unlock their esINIT through two primary methods.
The first option is to maintain their VIP Score across a predetermined vesting period defined by governance. As of now, holding a valid VIP Score for 26 consecutive stages allows 1/26 of a user's esINIT balance to convert into INIT at the end of each stage.
The second option allows users to provide liquidity to an esINIT:TOKEN pool on Initia DEX and stake the LP position. This method offers an alternative vesting path for users who may not want to maintain a VIP Score over time.
For rollup operators, esINIT is unlocked linearly over a defined vesting schedule. For example, with a 10-stage vesting period, one-tenth of the operator’s esINIT is converted to INIT at the end of each stage. This structure is designed to discourage short-term extraction and instead incentivize ongoing rollup development and network stability.
This unlock mechanism reinforces long-term participation from both users and operators. For users, it reduces the risk of short-term exit by requiring sustained engagement. For operators, it ties builder rewards directly to continued contribution. Together, these rules serve as a key element of VIP’s architecture, aligning stakeholder behavior with the sustainable growth of the ecosystem.
There is no such thing as a perfect incentive model. What matters is how well the structure aligns with the network’s intended direction, and whether each builder can access and leverage incentives in a way that best fits their own goals and constraints.
So how does VIP differ from existing incentive models, and what kind of appchains is it best suited for? To answer that, we compare VIP with the incentive models of Optimism and Berachain, and examine the synergies that VIP is designed to unlock.
Optimism, an Ethereum Layer 2 network, is developing a Superchain composed of OP Stack-based rollups such as Unichain, Base, and Mode. Its goal is to create seamless interoperability between rollups so that users experience the Superchain as if it were a single unified chain. While this cross-rollup architecture is structurally similar to Initia, its incentive mechanism diverges significantly. Optimism relies on seasonal airdrops and retroactive public goods funding (RetroPGF), allocating 19% of its total OP supply to airdrops and 20% to RetroPGF.
Berachain, on the other hand, aligns stakeholder incentives through BGT emissions and bribe-based market competition, fostering a liquidity-centric DeFi ecosystem. Its architecture differs from Initia’s, but its Proof of Liquidity (PoL) mechanism functions as a built-in incentive model at the chain level. PoL combines liquidity provisioning with economic security, using BGT as the core mechanism to align incentives among users, protocols, and validators.
From here, we compare the three incentive mechanisms across three key dimensions: incentive allocation, incentive distribution, and token value accrual. This comparison is not intended to rank one model over the others, but to highlight the conditions under which VIP is most effective.
Incentive allocation refers to the decision-making process that determines where rewards will be directed. It precedes actual distribution and represents the incentive system’s design logic.
Optimism: Incentives are distributed directly through RetroPGF and seasonal airdrops. There is no on-chain mechanism that governs how allocation decisions are made or structured.
Berachain: The allocation of BGT emissions to liquidity pools is determined by validator votes. Protocols offer bribes to the reward vault to attract emissions, and validators vote based on those bribes. Users delegate their BGT to validators, indirectly influencing the allocation outcome.
Initia: Balance pools allocate INIT based on lockup amounts, while weighted pools use gauge voting results to determine how rewards are distributed across rollups.
Optimism’s foundation-led approach enables targeted resource deployment according to strategic priorities, but it lacks transparency in its allocation criteria.
Berachain takes a market-driven approach that reflects free-market dynamics. However, in order to win BGT emissions, protocols often provide large bribes to the reward vault. This creates pressure to overpay or risk receiving little to no emissions. In response, there have been proposals to mitigate early resource depletion, such as extending the bribe window from three to seven days.
Initia allocates incentives by combining performance-based onchain metrics with gauge voting. Since gauge weights and INIT lock-up levels by rollup are transparently available, the mechanism offers relatively high predictability and transparency. Additionally, rollups do not need to continuously provide bribes to receive rewards. Once whitelisted into VIP, they can focus on optimizing their strategy between the balance pool and the weight pool to secure incentives. While this structure may introduce less dynamic market competition compared to Berachain, the future integration of bribe protocols like Cabal is expected to bring more market-driven coordination into the system.
Distribution criteria refer to the rules by which rewards are delivered to recipients based on specific actions or performance. These criteria can be divided into user-facing and builder-facing mechanisms.
4.2.1 For Users
Optimism: Seasonal airdrops are distributed based on arbitrary criteria set by the foundation. Retroactive rewards are given based on past activity across Superchain usage, governance, and content creation.
Berachain: BGT is distributed according to user liquidity provision.
Initia: VIP converts user activity (e.g., game play, NFT minting) into onchain scores, which are used to calculate reward allocations.
4.2.2 For Builders
Optimism: RetroPGF recipients are selected by badgeholders through a mix of qualitative votes and quantitative impact assessments.
Berachain: Direct grants are minimized. Berachain’s founder, Smokey, has publicly expressed skepticism toward grants, preferring mechanisms where BGT emissions and bribe dynamics indirectly fund liquidity, which in turn supports protocols more efficiently.
Initia: VIP rewards are distributed to appchain builders based on a predefined operator commission rate set onchain.
In summary, Optimism’s user rewards are distributed based on opaque and changing criteria, which leaves users speculating about future rewards. Without clear causal logic between actions and rewards, long-term engagement becomes difficult to sustain, and user drop-off is likely if expectations are not met. On the builder side, RetroPGF has improved over time through multiple rounds of iteration, with recent efforts incorporating quantifiable metrics to enhance fairness and effectiveness.
Berachain ties user incentives exclusively to liquidity provisioning. Within this framework, users engage in intuitive yield-farming behaviors, aligned with Berachain’s liquidity-focused DeFi ecosystem. For builders, Berachain offers strong market-driven incentives but limited direct financial support during development stages, which may be a barrier for early-stage teams lacking initial capital.
Initia’s distribution logic is the most programmatic and predictable among the three. Because reward flows are determined by explicitly defined user actions and onchain commission parameters, both users and builders can develop long-term strategies. Users benefit from clear incentive mechanics, while builders receive a sustainable stream of rewards, enabling stable operations over time.
For any incentive system to remain sustainable, the token that backs the rewards must possess ongoing demand and utility. Without a proper value accrual structure, token-based rewards risk losing effectiveness.
Optimism: OP is used primarily for governance and lacks built-in utility within the incentive framework.
Berachain: BERA and BGT form a flywheel driven by liquidity demand. Protocols supply bribes to the reward vault, attracting validator votes for BGT emissions. Higher emissions lead to increased APYs, encouraging users to provide liquidity. As users earn and stake BGT or delegate it to validators, this dynamic fuels ongoing demand for both tokens.
Initia: VIP drives sustained demand for INIT by making it the base currency across all rollups. As each appchain creates new utility, INIT demand rises. Through esINIT, reward tokens are locked and gradually vested, reducing short-term sell pressure and moderating token velocity. This structure ensures that rollup growth directly translates into INIT demand and long-term value capture.
Both Initia and Berachain use inflationary token emissions for incentives, meaning that token supply and demand design is critical to long-term sustainability.
Initia emphasizes a demand-driven token economy. As more appchains launch and grow, INIT becomes embedded in more use cases. esINIT adds supply-side control, reducing sell pressure and regulating circulation. This results in a more predictable and stable incentive system.
Berachain, on the other hand, generates BGT demand through high APYs tied to liquidity mining. However, when liquidity demand softens, APYs decline, leading to increased redemptions and sell pressure on BERA and BGT. This negative feedback loop may amplify downturns. To mitigate such risks, Berachain is actively exploring Chain-Owned Liquidity mechanisms to ensure baseline liquidity remains intact, regardless of market conditions.
Compared to existing incentive models, VIP presents the following key characteristics:
Performance-Based Allocation: VIP distributes rewards based on actual performance metrics such as liquidity lockup or gauge voting outcomes. This design prioritizes sustained utility creation over short-term hype. Simply launching a rollup is not sufficient. Only appchains that generate meaningful results are eligible for incentives.
Programmatic Grants and User Behavior Incentives: VIP incentivizes specific user actions via score-based metrics while allocating builder rewards through a commission-based model. This removes reliance on one-off grants and allows operators to design sustainable, rule-based reward flows.
Demand-Driven Token Economy: Most token economies follow a supply-driven model, based on the assumption that [token inflation] will be less than [the value generated by economic activity]. This structure amounts to a speculative bet on future growth through capital rotation. It relies on the expectation that inflationary token issuance will stimulate economic activity, and that demand will naturally follow.
In contrast, INIT is designed around a demand-driven model in which users must transact and exchange INIT as the base currency within appchains to earn VIP rewards. Mechanisms like the balance pool and gauge voting directly bootstrap user demand for rollup blockspace and economic activity, while the esINIT locking structure prevents premature capital exit. As a result, INIT’s token economy creates a more sustainable feedback loop in which the growth of appchains generates demand for INIT, and INIT in turn reinforces further appchain growth.
Ultimately, every element of VIP is optimized for long-term ecosystem growth. Appchains that deliver real utility earn more rewards. The model ensures that rewards are tied to value creation, and that this feedback loop continuously drives rollup expansion.
Given these traits, VIP is particularly well-suited for early-stage teams with limited capital. It offers a reliable framework for building and monetizing products without requiring upfront resources. As Initia’s ecosystem matures, a wide range of appchains, regardless of size, can adopt VIP as a foundational incentive layer. Especially at this early phase, VIP helps teams define clear onchain incentive criteria and guide users through a progressive activation path from onboarding to contribution.
Source: X(@Initia)
By leveraging VIP, appchains can secure ongoing reward flows based on performance, without relying on short-term airdrops or one-off campaigns. This enables teams to bootstrap early liquidity and user traction, and then scale incentives in proportion to results. Even with limited resources, builders can establish a strong foundation for long-term growth.
In Stage 1, a total of 673,076 INIT was distributed through VIP. On average, each rollup received around 62,166 INIT. Assuming an operator commission rate of 10%, this translates to approximately 6,216 INIT in builder rewards per rollup. The ability to earn this level of recurring incentives every two weeks can meaningfully support smaller teams in sustaining development efforts.
Source: X(@realizumikonata)
Examples of rollups bootstrapping without aggressive resource spending are beginning to emerge. One example is Yominet, which operates the game Kamigotchi. Within just two weeks of launch, Kamigotchi surpassed one million transactions. Given that over half of rollups on other networks remain below 500K transactions in their first month, this is a strong signal of VIP’s effectiveness in driving early user activity.
Source: X(@realizumikonata)
Moreover, Initia’s infrastructure, including enshrined liquidity (EL) and the Interwoven stack, is designed to integrate seamlessly with VIP. This enables rollups to onboard easily while securing both liquidity and technical capabilities. For example, Kamigotchi has adopted Initia’s EL by distributing LP fees to users who provide liquidity to the ONYX-INIT pool. This structure creates dual incentives: ONYX trading fees and potential INIT rewards.
EL is expected to play an increasingly important role in driving INIT demand and shaping liquidity flows as VIP progresses through successive stages. For example, as seen in the ONYX-INIT pair, which is composed of a 20:80 ratio, all EL pairs must maintain at least 50% INIT. This creates structural demand for INIT. Additionally, the network can actively manage liquidity inflows to each pair by adjusting the lock period for zapping esINIT. Longer lock periods discourage liquidity provisioning, while shorter ones encourage it. This mechanism allows for flexible distribution of liquidity and contributes to the fine-tuning of INIT’s demand-driven token economy.
In conclusion, VIP provides a reward mechanism that enables appchains to pursue sustainable growth based on real performance, without reliance on marketing campaigns or large external capital. With clear incentive criteria, user-aligned distribution logic, and predictable reward flows, VIP offers the strongest synergy for teams building with long-term intent.
The greatest strength of built-in incentives lies in their ability to transform reward-based participation into voluntary and sustained engagement. This transition enhances the sustainability of the ecosystem while maximizing the efficiency of resource allocation. Because all processes are executed automatically at the chain level, built-in incentives reduce arbitrariness and inefficiency in incentive design. They allow each participant to operate within a predictable framework. Based on this structure, Initia’s VIP organically connects its interwoven multichain ecosystem and introduces a new standard for incentive architecture.
VIP aligns the interests of users, rollups, and INIT holders in a consistent direction, integrating their interactions into a unified flywheel mechanism. This flywheel combines various components such as the balance pool, gauge voting, bribe markets, esINIT, and score-based distribution. Each participant’s pursuit of incentives is designed to contribute directly to the growth of the ecosystem as a whole. As VIP operates, rollups become more active, which increases demand for INIT. As INIT demand rises and its value stabilizes, this in turn incentivizes more activity from both users and rollups, creating a structural feedback loop.
Can the built-in incentive model proposed by Initia’s VIP replace the traditional airdrop playbook in the broader crypto landscape? Airdrops will likely remain relevant as a bootstrapping mechanism in early stages. However, chain-level incentives that are structurally aligned with the network’s architecture and direction can deploy incentive resources more efficiently. Even for networks that are not modular or appchain-oriented like Initia, VIP offers a viable path toward building robust application ecosystems.
In this light, VIP can be seen as a pivotal turning point that shifts the focus of incentive design from how much to distribute to how it should be distributed. This shift will likely be validated over time as Initia’s interwoven rollups and broader ecosystem continue to grow in tandem.
