Wallchain and HeyElsa Reach Resolution After Rewards Dispute

Steady attention without excessive speculation.

How the Rewards Campaign Turned Into a Public Dispute

The conflict originated from a multi-month collaboration campaign, where creators produced sustained promotional content in exchange for token rewards. Many participants believed they were operating under fixed rules tied to Wallchain’s scoring and eligibility standards, especially for top-ranked contributors.

After the campaign ended and participants expected distributions, they alleged that HeyElsa introduced additional anti-sybil restrictions and filtering criteria that disqualified many users. Creators claimed the company applied the changes retroactively after months of work, prompting accusations that the effort amounted to unpaid labor.

This escalated rapidly into a credibility crisis, with the dispute spreading widely on Crypto Twitter and shaping the early public narrative around the $ELSA token after launch.

Wallchain and HeyElsa Reach Resolution With Settlement Terms

On January 27, Wallchain announced that both parties reached a settlement after multiple negotiation rounds. The agreement includes a $150,000 USDC payout, which Wallchain will distribute directly to affected participants based on campaign involvement.

The deal also includes a revised $ELSA allocation of 0.2%, rather than the original figure creators believed was promised. While lower than expected, the token allocation still serves as meaningful compensation, particularly given $ELSA’s newly expanded liquidity and price discovery environment.

Crucially, Wallchain stated the settlement framework includes users regardless of whether they met strict on-chain activity thresholds, suggesting HeyElsa agreed to loosen some eligibility assumptions that fueled the controversy.

Vesting Rules Change the Value of the $ELSA Allocation

The settlement introduces vesting terms that significantly shape the real value of the token compensation. Wallchain confirmed the 0.2% token allocation will be distributed under a 3-month cliff followed by 6-month linear vesting.

For participants, this means rewards cannot be fully accessed immediately. While the vesting design helps prevent instant dumping and protects market stability, it also delays compensation for creators who spent months working under the expectation of near-term distribution.

This vesting structure is one reason many see the settlement as a compromise rather than a full restoration of the original campaign promise.

Community Reaction Remains Divided Despite the Deal

The resolution cooled the immediate outrage, but reactions remained mixed across Solana CT. Some creators welcomed the settlement as proof Wallchain can pressure projects to honor agreements and fight for contributors, especially in a sector where community labor is often undervalued.

Others viewed the result as insufficient, arguing the reduced token allocation and vesting conditions still reflect a system where projects retain disproportionate control. Even after a settlement, critics warned that the episode sets a precedent: marketing campaigns can still change after completion, and creators may have to negotiate rather than rely on guaranteed enforcement.

In effect, the deal prevented the situation from escalating further, but did not fully erase the trust damage created during the dispute.