Token Airdrop Weekly Data Report — October 5 – 11, 2026

The sixth week-over-week comparison. This week's tables are dominated by one theme: unlocks that trackers size in incompatible ways. Three of the week's four largest releases — HYPE, ENA and ADI — carry at least two headline figures each, and none of the disagreements is a rounding error. We publish both values in every case and refuse to reconcile them. The threshold series moved up for the second week in a row, the deadline ratio added a dated row, and the WLFI measurement gap carried straight into the renewed campaign. Only verifiable, source-attributed figures are in the tables below; every row names where it came from.

A note on what this report is and is not. It is a record of what the week's sources published, tabulated so the same series can be read week over week; it is not a forecast, and no figure here is adjusted for an expected future value. Where a number cannot be sourced it is left out rather than estimated, and where two sources conflict both are printed. The sections below follow the four series this report has carried since its first issue, then close with a data quality ledger and a multi-week comparison.

The week in numbers

A one-screen summary before the detail, with the four headline movements of the week. Each is unpacked below with its sources.

The summary above is the only place in this report where figures from different sections are placed side by side without full attribution; each row is expanded, with its sources, in the sections that follow. Where a number has two published values, the summary uses the one with the clearer provenance and the detail section prints both.

Read the summary as a set of movements rather than a set of levels. Three of its four rows describe direction — up, resolved, higher — and only one carries an absolute value that stands on its own. That is intentional: this report tracks change, and a change is only meaningful against a prior reading, which is why each row's "last week" column matters as much as its "this week" one. A reader who wants a level rather than a movement should read the section tables, where each figure sits beside the source that produced it.

1. The Alpha threshold series

Binance Alpha's October 9 airdrop opened at 245 points, the highest threshold this tracker has recorded in October, and the second consecutive week-over-week rise. The claim consumed 15 points per user and the threshold fell by 5 points every five minutes while rewards remained unclaimed — the same decay mechanic as prior rounds.

The 245 print is not directly comparable to the single-token rounds before it, because the Alpha Box pool held tokens from multiple projects rather than one asset. The threshold measures the same thing — the point cost of a claim — but the reward behind it is a distribution of values across three tiers rather than a fixed token allocation. We flag the comparability rather than adjust the number.

Four points of context on the series. First, the threshold is a clearing price for a finite pool: it opens at a level the platform thinks will draw enough claims, then decays by 5 points every five minutes while rewards remain, so the printed figure is a ceiling rather than a fixed cost. Second, the point cost of a claim (15) is constant across rounds, which means the series measures demand for claims rather than the price of a point. Third, the move from 250 (September 23) to 223 (September 30) to 245 (October 9) is a rebound rather than a trend — a 27-point drop followed by a 22-point rise, which is consistent with the threshold tracking per-round interest rather than a durable level. Fourth, and most important for anyone reconstructing this series later: the October 9 round was a same-day event, so the threshold applies to a single claim window rather than to a week-long campaign, and it should not be read as a weekly average.

One further caution applies to the whole series. Because the threshold decays during a round, a single printed value is a snapshot of the opening bar rather than a fixed cost, and snapshots can be taken at different moments. The 245 figure is the opening threshold, before any decay; a reader who claimed late in the window faced a lower bar, which means the series tracks the price of entering a round rather than the average price paid. For comparing rounds against each other that is the right measure, because it holds the reference point constant — but it should not be mistaken for what any individual claimant actually paid.

2. The unlock week: four sizes, three disagreements

The October 5–11 unlock calendar carried the largest single discrete release of the month (HYPE) and a cluster of smaller ones. The table's largest single dollar figure belongs to RAIN, but that row is a recurring monthly emission rather than a discrete unlock, so it sits outside the "largest single unlock" comparison. The table records each release with the figure we could source, and marks where two sources disagree. Where they do, we print both — never an average.

Three points of method. First, the unlock "amount" is ambiguous by construction: a committed claim, a scheduled ceiling and a programme total can all be labelled "the unlock," and the ENA and HYPE rows show exactly that ambiguity. Second, the market-cap share depends on the denominator, and ADI shows the widest gap — 7.18% versus 74.12% for the same 6.99 million tokens — because its circulating float is small. Third, dollar values move with price; the figures above use each source's own reference date, so they should be treated as that source's snapshot, not a current quote.

Worth separating what is in dispute from what is not. The dates are agreed in every case: ENA landed October 5, HYPE October 6, STABLE October 8, ADI October 9, RAIN October 10 and APT October 11, across two independent calendars. The recipients are largely agreed too — core contributors and investors for HYPE and ENA, a mix of community, foundation and ecosystem allocations for ADI, STABLE and APT. What differs is the magnitude, and magnitude is what a claimant uses to size expected sell pressure. That is precisely why the disagreements matter here: the parts of a release that are easy to agree on are the parts that do not change anyone's behaviour.

There is also a category distinction the table blurs by listing six rows together. ENA and HYPE are team-and-investor releases — supply moving from a locked allocation into wallets that have been waiting to sell. STABLE, ADI, RAIN and APT are largely ecosystem, community and foundation releases, which move into wallets with no immediate profit motive. Treating all six as "sell pressure" overstates the first pair's effect relative to the second, and it is a distinction the unlock calendars themselves rarely make.

A fourth point concerns what a claimant can and cannot do with these figures. None of the six releases is actionable in the sense a claim window is: they are scheduled supply events that occur whether or not anyone watches. Their value to a reader is informational — they set expectations about float and about the composition of sellers — and informational value degrades quickly. By the next issue, the questions that will matter are whether the off-book HYPE batch moved and whether the disputed ENA and ADI figures were ever reconciled, not what the numbers were on the day.

3. The tracked-deadline ratio

This tracker's deadline ratio counts how many tracked claim rows carry a printed end date versus an open-ended window. This week the set gains a dated row: Pharos (PROS) now carries an October 25 close, joining Sonic (October 15) and Grass (January 22, 2027).

The ratio is a measure of visibility, not of opportunity. An open window with no end date can still expire — the Kraken row is this week's proof — but a claimant cannot see the date in advance, which is the practical difference the metric tracks.

The movement this week is worth reading carefully because the count rose for a reason that is not growth. Pharos gained a date the project itself published, which is genuine added visibility. Kraken left the tier because its window closed, which is a removal rather than a loss of visibility. In net terms the board carries the same number of live obligations it did a fortnight ago, but two of them are now legible in a way they were not: Pharos because its end date is visible, Kraken because it is finished. A rising count is not automatically good news for claimants — it can mean more windows are open, or fewer are ambiguous.

The metric also carries an intentional limitation. It counts rows the tracker follows, not every airdrop in the market; a project that publishes a deadline tomorrow does not enter the count until it is added to the board. That is why the figure moves in single steps rather than jumping, and why it should be read as a property of this tracker's coverage rather than of the market as a whole. Over the four weeks we have carried it, the count has moved once — from two to three — and the reason was a single project publishing a date, not a wave of new deadlines.

There is a second reading of the same number, and it is the one a claimant should keep in mind. A rising count of printed end dates is good news about legibility and neutral news about value: it says more of this tracker's rows can be planned around, nothing more. The ratio would be a warning sign only if it fell while the number of live claims rose, which would mean more open windows with less visible timing. That has not happened in the four weeks the series covers — the count has been flat or rising throughout — and the distinction is worth holding, because a metric that measures visibility is easily mistaken for one that measures opportunity.

4. The WLFI measurement gap, renewed

The renewed Binance USD1 campaign began October 2 with a 150 million WLFI pool plus up to 2.5 million USD1, and its first Stage 1 payout fell due on October 10, 2026 (02:00 UTC+8, i.e. 18:00 UTC Friday). As with the four payouts of the closed Sep 4 – Oct 2 round, we found no published per-distribution WLFI value in sources accessible to us at publication.

The measurement gap is the longest-running item in this tracker. A reward paid in a token whose per-distribution value is never printed cannot be valued at distribution time; the only firm figure in the renewed campaign is the stablecoin tranche, denominated in USD1, that arrives in Stage 2. Whether Stage 2 prints per-payout values is the test of whether the gap is a policy or an oversight.

The mechanics of the renewed campaign make the gap slightly harder to close than the closed round's did, for a structural reason. Rewards accrue from hourly snapshots and are calculated from the lowest captured balance each day, so a holder's qualifying balance is itself a moving figure across the week; the WLFI amount is then set using Binance's official closing price the day before distribution. Two variables — the balance and the price — determine a payout whose token value is only knowable after the fact, which is precisely the kind of number a per-distribution disclosure would settle. The campaign's own materials point holders to a distribution-history page, but the per-payout values we could reach did not include it.

For context on why this gap is tracked rather than merely noted: the campaign now spans two rounds and at least five payouts, over a pool of 150 million WLFI per round. Over a programme that size, the absence of a per-payout figure means a holder cannot compute an effective yield from first principles — only an estimate from APRs the exchange publishes after each distribution. That is the difference between a reward one can underwrite and a reward one must take on trust, and it is the specific reason this series has followed the number every week since the first distribution.

Two things would close the gap, and neither has happened. The first is a per-payout disclosure: a figure for each distribution, published with the distribution rather than reconstructed afterwards. The second is a change in the reward asset — the Stage 2 stablecoin tranche is the first part of this campaign denominated in a currency whose value is definitional, so a holder can at least value that portion without a token price. If Stage 2 prints values for the WLFI side as well, the gap closes; if it prints only the USD1 side, the campaign will have clarified half its reward and left the other half exactly where it has been for five payouts.

5. Data quality ledger

Every resolved and unresolved discrepancy this tracker carried this week, stated plainly.

The ledger is deliberately blunt, and its most common status is the least satisfying one: "unresolved — both printed." Six items are carried this week, of which three are unresolved, two are resolved and one is partial. That mix is normal. The purpose of the ledger is not to settle every discrepancy but to record which ones were live in a given week, so that a later settlement can be matched against the week it was raised. An item leaves the ledger when it is resolved or superseded; an item that stays is a standing caveat on any figure drawn from it.

6. Multi-week context

The three series this report carries week over week, placed side by side. Cells the tracker did not carry in a given week are marked "not carried" rather than back-filled.

Two readings from the table. The threshold series is the noisiest of the three: a decline to 223 then a rebound to 245 over two weeks is not a level but a bounce, and the October 9 value is from a same-day multi-project round rather than a week-long campaign, which makes it a weaker comparison than its neighbours. The deadline count is the most stable — it moved once in three weeks — and the WLFI gap is the most monotonic, rising by exactly one every week because each week contains exactly one scheduled payout. Of the three, the WLFI row is the only one whose movement is a pure function of the calendar, which is why it is the easiest to verify and the hardest to dispute.

The table also shows where this report's coverage is thinnest. Two of its three series begin this month, so their history is short, and the earliest columns carry "not carried" rather than a back-filled value — a gap the report keeps visible rather than closing with an estimate. Over time the series will lengthen and the gaps will move rightward, which is the only honest way to build a multi-week comparison: from a stated baseline forward, rather than from a reconstructed past backward.

Sources

FAQ

Related Reading

• Token Airdrop Weekly News Review — October 5 – 11, 2026
• Token Airdrop Weekly Intelligence — October 5 – 11, 2026
• Token Airdrop Weekly Data Report — September 28 – October 4, 2026
• Airdrop Market Report — September 2026