I have serious questions about how the AXIS Robotics Korean community airdrop was handled. Participants were initially told that everyone who submitted the form would receive an allocation, before the process changed to include Sybil screening. Several participants I have spoken to believe they were rejected because their wallets lacked transaction history. Yet when I asked the Korean moderator about the actual eligibility criteria, I did not receive a clear explanation. Meanwhile, I found that 50 different addresses transferred a total of approximately 2,047.5353 AXIS into a single wallet within 68 seconds. My understanding is that the receiving wallet belongs to “집가고싶다,” a community member who is close to the Korean moderator. This raises a specific question that deserves an answer: if those 50 addresses received the airdrop despite having little or no prior activity, why did they qualify while other similarly inactive wallets were reportedly rejected? The team should confirm whether those addresses received allocations and explain how they were assessed. The moderator’s response was that the team handled the distribution and that they did not know the details. Simply referring the matter to “the team” leaves the concern unresolved. Who made the eligibility decisions? What criteria and cutoff date were used? Did the Korean moderator submit recommendations, influence exclusions, or participate in exceptions? Were the same rules applied to everyone? These are reasonable questions about the fairness of the distribution. The team needs to provide a direct, verifiable explanation. Leaving the criteria undisclosed while concerns about preferential treatment go unanswered only makes the process harder to trust. @axisrobotics please explain about this situation basescan.org/address/0x11e26…