Should we update the date to May 31?
At least May 31 is not an arbitrary date. If we want to give people an opportunity to claim their badge, we should give them the full opportunity.
I’ve updated the date.
Agree, but only for those who were subscribers before DAO was announced.
Is this replacing “Premium Members (off-chain)” retroactive distribution?
Yes, the token allocation for this proposal would come from the 29% retroactive distribution (87,000,000 BANK). Once all badge holders have gotten their BANK in line with this proposal, then the remaining amount would be allocated per the existing “Premium Members (off-chain)” retroactive distribution plan (or by any proposal that overrides that plan).
I’m tentatively in support. People had lots of opportunity to claim, instructions were provided to claim for close to free (using xdai), raffles were held for poap-holders, etc. Basically everything that could be done without saying “get the badge; there’s going to be an airdrop”.
I’m not convinced that people that couldn’t be arsed to claim the badge, even after all of that, should receive the same drop as people that previously claimed the 2020 badge. What I would prefer to see would be:
1st - lower the minimum holding required for DAO participation from 35k to something more accessible, like 15k or even lower.
2nd - pass proposal of something like the above, but with a minimum distribution to all new badge-holders of the new lower minimum instead of the current 35k minimum.
3rd - pro rata distribution of the remaining 87M across all badges.
This could bring new badgeholders above the 35k, but it would be more fair to the existing members of the DAO that have already been putting a lot of effort in. A six-month vesting is reasonable for the entire second airdrop, not just the new badgeholders (though existing badgeholders could still sell their liquid tokens if they meet the lower participation threshold with just the locked tokens from the 2nd drop).
As someone who claimed their badge BEFORE the DAO was announced, but after the May 4th deadline (morning of May 5) due to a family emergency that happened at the end of April, it would feel unfair for the distribution to be a different amount. I would be fine with the 6 month holding period — I don’t want to sell, I want to get involved!
I’m relatively new to crypto, but not tech. I’ve been enthusiastically working to learn and do everything crypto and especially Ethereum related.
Plus is hurts my programmer brain to think of doing anything other than “lookup all badge holders on May 31, exclude those sent before and execute the same distribution logic”
I understand what you’re trying to achieve with this proposal, but I think it’s counterproductive. The subscribers that feel left out arbitrarily are still entitled to receive $BANK as detailed in the DAO announcement article. Adding the badge now won’t gain a subscriber any additional bank. The retroactive air drop is 30% of total $BANK. 180,000,000 $BANK that was already allocated to badge holders is part of that 30%. Non badge holders and badge holders alike are still due to receive 87,000,000 $BANK that is going to be distributed at the end of the month. If a subscriber didn’t claim the badge, they’re not going to receive as much as someone who did claim the badge. It’s just that simple. They’ll still get $BANK though.
I think the issue is that people wouldn’t receive enough BANK to qualify as DAO members from the premium only drop.
One issue I see with this is - with a 6 month cliff are these new people just not going to be eligible to join the DAO for 6 months?
I think it would be easier to lower the # of BANK requirement for DAO entry and enact the other proposal to do a fully equal distribution of remaining BANK based on badge ownership May 31. Whatever this # is would be the # needed to join the DAO
This would solve a lot of issues
- Privacy/engagement issue with protonmail folks
- Simplify distribution, no address collection needed
- All that needs to change is the collabbot setting for the discord. Minimal changes to claim site needed
I think someone is drafting a proposal to lower the discord access requirement.
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.
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
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:
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.