# Don’t just focus on points: what’s really worth watching about these 3 early projects today
Today, check out **Paygent, Axis Robotics, Zentrix Gaming**: one is entering the TGE on the day of launch, one has just adjusted the contribution scoring rules, and one has a clearly defined end-of-month testnet window.
What’s worth looking at now isn’t because “they all have points,” but because each of the three has shown verifiable timeframes, rules, or task milestones.
The maximum risk is also very specific: Paygent’s fake contracts, Axis’s invalid vote-bot boosting, and Zentrix’s regional restrictions and points rollbacks.
## Paygent: The community pool has been confirmed—doesn’t mean individual eligibility has been confirmed
**One-sentence takeaway**: The official has written a 2% community airdrop into the token economy, and set the TGE for September 8, 19:00–20:00 UTC; the real information gap is that the eligibility rules have not yet been published.
**Why now**: On the day of the TGE, it’s easiest for official contracts, spoofed pools, and fake checkers to all appear at once. The official disclosure states a fixed total of 10 million, and the community portion is locked for 30 days, but as of now no individual eligibility, snapshot range, or claim steps have been provided. What existing users should do is verify historical usage and official announcements; new users don’t need to create high-cost interactions just to chase an unknown snapshot.
**Metrics worth tracking**:
- Whether the community airdrop contract can be verified on-chain, and which block or timestamp the 30-day countdown starts from;
- Whether a资格 (eligibility) checker, snapshot interpretation, and claim window have been published;
- Whether the official contract address remains consistent across multiple official channels.
**Pitfalls I’ll avoid**: I won’t connect to any “claim page” that appears early; I won’t interpret the 2% total pool as an allocation you already have; and I won’t chase secondary contract addresses when eligibility is still unclear.
## Axis Robotics: Scores begin to distinguish between “done” and “done effectively”
**One-sentence takeaway**: Axis has recently made the recommendation multiplier and high-difficulty task rules more specific—contribution quality is starting to replace simply stacking numbers of attempts.
**Why now**: On September 3, the official adjusted the recommendation threshold: users who are recommended and complete 5 qualified tracks and 10 qualified tracks correspond to multipliers of 1.05 and 1.10 respectively. Then the Challenger tasks were launched, with per-task points being 2–3 times that of ordinary tasks; whitelists are reviewed weekly based on the number of historical tasks, verification pass rate, and performance on the same-topic tasks. The eligibility refreshes and tasks are deployed every Monday, allowing you to continuously observe whether the rules are truly being enforced.
**Metrics worth tracking**:
- Your own track verification pass rate, not the total number submitted;
- The “Seek the Unseen” badge and how the weekly whitelist changes;
- Whether the content points, Hub contribution points, and valid recommendations are credited correctly and separately.
**Pitfalls I’ll avoid**: Scripted tracks, batch alt accounts, and engagement purchases may be filtered out; I also won’t treat the Epoch cutoff dates circulated by the community as official confirmation. Before connecting a plugin, check permissions; on-chain signatures should only be completed within the official Hub.
## Zentrix Gaming: There’s a deadline at the end of the month, but first check whether you can access it legally
**One-sentence takeaway**: The testnet from September 1 to 30 clearly defines the action window—good for low-capital-cost experience—but regional restrictions are a real gate.
**Why now**: The testnet is still in its first week, so tasks, trials, and valid recommendations can all generate points. Recently, the recommendation score was raised from 100 to 500, while invalid recommendations may be deleted and the points clawed back. The rule changes show that “bringing in accounts” doesn’t automatically mean “forming valid contributions.” At the same time, the test webpage returns HTTP 451 directly for some regions, so determining accessibility is more important than researching score-farming paths.
**Metrics worth tracking**:
- Whether points credited after daily trials are stable—any delay or rollback;
- Whether snapshots, settlement details, and the intended use of points are published before September 30;
- Whether the criteria for valid recommendations continue to be adjusted.
**Pitfalls I’ll avoid**: I won’t bypass clearly stated regional restrictions; I won’t connect my main wallet to a new testnet; and I won’t transfer funds to any page that claims “you must recharge real assets to activate testnet points.” Testnet points can’t automatically be equated with future allocations.
## A collectible decision-making framework
When you encounter a new project, first filter through four layers: **Hard Nodes**—check whether the date and rules come from official sources; **Verifiability**—see whether points, eligibility, or contracts can be independently verified; **Marginal Cost**—determine whether the next action adds genuinely useful behavior or just meaningless attempts; **Consequences of Failure**—assess whether the worst case is simply wasting time, or whether it could expose your main wallet, real funds, or create compliance risk. If two of the four layers are unclear, you should only observe. Only when the nodes are clear, costs are controllable, and the record is verifiable is it suitable for a small-scope trial.