CT loves volume leaderboards But imagine spending years voting, locking tokens and supporting a protocol... just to get outranked by some dude who farmed volume for 7 days That's one thing @zerufinance trying to change with Zaps Look at its first Aerodrome campaign The scoring wasn't just about who traded the most 40% came from $AERO trading 40% from veAERO holdings 20% from weeks spent voting So a wallet that spent months participating in governance could actually get recognized for that history Here's the part I find more interesting Your historical activity determines your share of the reward pool But only verified trading during the campaign determines how much of that pool gets unlocked Two different jobs Past contribution helps decide who deserves a share New activity determines how much the protocol actually pays out And wash volume doesn't count toward unlocking rewards The first Aerodrome campaign was only a pipeline test using AEROSTRAT, a token with no monetary value So I'm not treating this as proof of profitable incentives yet The real test comes after rewards end Do those wallets keep trading? Do governance participants stick around? Because any protocol can pay users to generate volume Getting them to stay is a completely different game That's the metric I'd be watching for Zaps