I understand being cautious about whether something is a scam or not. But picking the naming of an airdrop vs signature campaign as a possible reason is not a great reason.

On one hand one was required to wear a signature, like a signature campaign, but on the other hand they were not doing an ICO, and when a coin is freely distributed, that's called an airdrop model. They did this every week, and one could participate or not on any particular week. Leave and come back. Signature campaign typically last throughout an ICO and the coins are distributed after the ICO is over.

But the key thing that made this an air drop in my opinion was that the coins were being given away instead of an ICO.

The point is that using that as some sort of proof, the possible different naming of something as proof that they are dishonest is really not a good reason. Because what would the team gain in doing so? The distribution model would still be the same. Being dishonest would not give them any advantage, and would have the opposite effect.

And other than that I don't see anywhere where they were dishonest. They pretty much followed their roadmap to the t.

Anyway I'm just responding because I thought it was an interesting argument.

Edit: Things like the Twitter bounty. That's separate from the air drop, and not part of it. These were side things that people could participate in aside from the airdrop that did not affect it at all. One did not have to participate in those in order to be part of the airdrop.