Airdrop for Badges Claimed Between May 4 - 31

A six-month cliff means the tokens will be counted for DAO eligibility, but cannot be transferred.

All transfers of ERC20 tokens query the smart contract governing the token. The contract can maintain a list of locked addresses, so they can hold in their wallet and be counted for DAO participation, but if they try to transfer then the transaction fails.



Nice work. Still thinking about where I land on this. I would personally stand to benefit since I claimed my 2021 badge late, but I can see both sides of the argument.

A few implementation questions about this proposal:

  • How will you determine the set of badges that were claimed late? I believe we could look at the POAP contract, but what if the user transferred the POAP to a different address since then? Would chain analysis be used to follow the chain of transfers and credit the appropriate wallet? That could get a bit complicated.
  • If these late-claimed badges are resold on the secondary market, that would entitle the recipient to a time-delayed claim of 35k BANK as well?
  • Does this apply to both 2020 and 2021 badges? E.g. if someone claimed both badges late, would they be entitled to an extra 70k?
  • I assume they’d still get a share of any remaining amount, per the terms agreed upon in my proposal? Badge-Based Distribution for Subscriber Airdrop (FINAL)

Would be great to get clarity on the above and update the proposal itself.

Thanks for putting this together.

@lambda comments on your questions:

  • We will use these addresses: POAP Gallery (2020) and POAP Gallery (2021). I’m not totally following the transfer question. Would the BANK not go through if the badge isn’t in the wallet at the time of the airdrop? If so, I would say it’s the responsibility of the badge holder to make sure it’s in their original wallet so they can get their drop.
  • The answer to the re-sell question is dependent on whether the badge needs to be in the same wallet to get the transfer.
  • This applies to all badges, so yes someone would get 70k BANK if they claimed both badges between May 4 - 31. Looking at the POAP gallery, it looks this this would happen in a few cases.
  • Correct, these badge holders will still be included in the subscriber airdrop, I don’t see any reason to exclude them.

For some reason I’m unable to edit anything right now. Will wait a little bit to see if my editing access comes back.


I said this on Discord but I want to be sure it is said here, although it is a bit of a repeat of what I said earlier in this thread.

We now have two proposals that utilize the same funds from the 29% retroactive distribution in the genesis proposal, so I believe to move forward we will need to reconcile the two proposals in some way so that the treasury knows what to do.

While I think voting is one way to resolve this, something we learned from the other proposal is that communication is more important than a poll about whether you are “FOR” and “AGAINST” on something.

To try to resolve this I think we should try to be transparent about what the goals are of this proposal.

Is this about access (1) or is it about getting tokens (2)?

1. If it is about access, then maybe a better proposal is about making sure that people who redeemed the badge after May 4th (through 31st) are given access to the Discord. One example of resolving it would be adjusting the retroactive genesis distribution to be sure that the “redeem after” group is given at least 35k in the second airdrop. This could also just be adjusting the Discord access to be the average number of tokens in the second airdrop (if it is lower than 35k). There are plenty of other options to resolve this.

2. If it is about getting tokens, then I suggest we make it clear that these funds are being taken away from the 29% retroactive genesis proposal allocation for people in the second airdrop. Because the second airdrop is reduced to meet this new proposal, it is only fair that this message is abundantly clear before any snapshot vote takes place. I truly believe that some may not be aware of this fact, especially since it was only clarified after this poll had been made.

I realize you may not be able to edit the original proposal, but to be honest I think it would a better idea to start a new proposal with a new poll, since the proposal has been changed from the original that started the poll. This was something we learned from after the other proposal had a similar issue. While this is not an official procedure that we have established, there is an argument for doing this in good faith.

I hope this makes sense. Once again there is no perfect solution, we must work together and hope that everyone’s concerns are voiced before putting it to a real vote.

Thank you for taking the time to put together your proposal, and I hope you will consider my concerns.

1 Like

Accounts that actively participate in the Genesis Governance Vote should be eligible for a second airdrop.

@nkistner Thanks, this really clears it up! I hadn’t seen the gallery with claim date. I think that addresses the issues I raised, as well as the transfer issue :slight_smile:

RE: the editing issue specifically, this is an unfortunate issue with Discourse. There was a site wide preference that disables editing after a certain amount of time. This is now disabled, but it doesn’t retroactively re-open old proposals for editing and admins don’t seem to have that ability either. Super annoying.

@Liu this proposal is not about the second airdrop, but rather a new airdrop to people who missed out on the first because they did not redeem their badge. If you have a different proposal than either of these then I suggest you bring it up in a new topic.

The second airdrop proposal topic can be found over here:

1 Like

Thanks @Oktal. This proposal is about access. And with so many moving pieces, the only way to ensure that Bankless subscribers who didn’t claim their badge get access is with this proposal. I understand it may be controversial. I encourage everyone to vote the way they think is best.

With that said, we have been pretty steady at ~64% in favor, so I plan to close this vote soon so we can get the official snapshot vote.

Fairness and equal distribution is important for me. I am for this proposal.

1 Like

I support this proposal big time.

I missed the BANK drop because my badge was still unclaimed in my email. I claimed it directly on the day of the DAO announcement but was already too late. I might be biased but sounds like a fair proposal. Personally I don’t mind a 6 month cliff. 35000 BANK for the membership in the DAO is what I think most people want

Sounds good to me! :smiley:

This is cool. I have a bunch of friends that were premium members that didn’t claim a badge and they’re all a titch bummed. One of em is happy regardless, which is great.

Disagree with this. People who didn’t claim beforehand may have many reasons for not claiming. Jobs, childcare, lack of experience with browser wallets etc. They were supporting financially, reading, listening, sharing and whatever else before anything was announced so they deserve to be rewarded, even if they were not savvy enough to guess what was coming.

1 Like

I’m archiving this. Reply if you would like it reopened

1 Like

@frogmonkee Has there been any official follow-up regarding an airdrop for those of us that claimed between May 4 - May 31?

@0x_Lucas is working on it. I believe they ran into some technical difficulties.

1 Like

Hello again,
I compared the 2021 badges between the first and 2nd airdrops, gist here:

There are approximately 490 people who claimed their badge between May 4 and May 31, myself among them. I feel as though many of those individuals would/could be an asset to the DAO since they invested in Bankless prior to the DAO announcement. Personally, I feel as though those folks should get the full 35000 BANK originally distributed; however, if there is a desire to somewhat discount the fact that they didn’t claim before the 4th, a mere 19,816.75 BANK each (9,710,207.5 total) would enable them to gain access to the DAO.

It seems like this proposal has gotten lost in the shuffle, understandably so, given the flurry of activity. In the end, I wish to have some sort of resolution as to whether this is fully rejected or if there is someone somewhere working on this since a month ago, it seemed to have community support.

We have two claims contracts that will go back to the Treasury after ~60 days. I’m okay with taking some BANK from those claims contracts and distributing when they’re back in our Treasury

Hello here… It’s been two months, and I know that the leftovers from the first airdrop have been returned to the Treasury. How do you feel about reintroducing this idea to the DAO? Which Guild do you think would be the most appropriate place to discuss this?