Badge-Based Distribution for Subscriber Airdrop

Authors: @lambda
Read the Discord discussion: Discord
Date: 5/6/2021


  • Replace the current “unique emails seen” scheme for the premium subscriber airdrop with an even distribution to Bankless badge holders as of 5/31/2021 at 11:59pm UTC.
    • There are two options under consideration: duration-based and even.


  • While the initial airdrop was meant to reward those who took the initiative to claim their badges, we still want to recognize people who subscribed to Bankless, even if they forgot to claim. This is why the original email-based distribution scheme was proposed (pro rata amount based on “unique emails seen” per Substack).
  • Unfortunately, the above approach has several shortcomings:
    • Some of our community members utilize privacy software that blocks Substack’s ability to track newsletter engagement. This means their newsletter activity wouldn’t have been recorded and thus they would receive a disproportionately low/no allocation in the airdrop.
    • Many Bankless fans prefer to listen to podcasts on YouTube, etc. and therefore their engagement wouldn’t be reflected in the airdrop.
    • Bankless DAO is currently looking for community members to perform outreach in order to collect ETH addresses for the second airdrop. In terms of privacy, this is inferior to badges in which the association of claim URL to ETH address is obfuscated by POAP, which doesn’t display the claim address for a particular link. The inferior privacy of email-based distribution leads to an inconvenient experience if users wish to return BANK to their primary wallet while preserving pseudonymity. Collecting addresses needlessly expends the labor of DAO participants that could go toward more productive activities.


  • A badge-based scheme achieves a more equitable distribution of tokens since it doesn’t rely on inaccurate proxies for engagement. This aids in the credibility of the DAO in the eyes of its members and the general public. Given the Bankless ethos, we shouldn’t penalize users who take extra steps to protect their privacy online.
  • Our DAO should be equally inclusive of those who have auditory learning styles instead of biasing toward those who prefer to read.
  • Due to the superior privacy of the badge-based distribution mechanism, it is inherently credibly neutral and decentralized. It’s not enough to evangelize the virtues of decentralization as a DAO; we must embody them as well.


Duration-Based Distribution (Revised Proposal)

  • A unique POAP shall be created for each possible duration that a particular subscriber was subscribed to Bankless (1 month, 2 months … N months, where N = maximum possible subscriber duration).
  • The most recent month eligible for a 1-month badge would be April 2021.
  • The Genesis Team shall appoint a DAO member to aggregate lists of subscribers based on the length of time subscribed and issue the appropriate POAP to each list.
  • On 5/31/2021 at 11:59pm UTC, a snapshot will be taken of all addresses on ETH and xDAI that hold any of the above POAPs.
  • The total number of subscriber-months will be summed. EDIT: This will be based on claimed badges only.
  • The share of BANK to be allocated in the airdrop will be divided according to the following formula:

BANK claim = (87M BANK / Total # of subscriber-months) * (# of subscriber-months for that address’s POAP)

  • BANK not claimed within 90 days of claims going live will be surrendered back to the community treasury.

Advantages Over Even Distribution

  • Subscription duration is a finer-grained proxy for engagement since it’s on the granularity of a month versus a year.
  • 5/31 deadline is moveable given there’s no need to worry about the impending issuance of 2021 badges on 6/1.
  • Subscribers are still rewarded in case they lost or traded away their original badge.

Disadvantages Compared to Even Distribution

  • Slightly more work to generate each POAP and aggregate distribution lists.
  • More work for people who already claimed their 2020/21 badges.
  • More complicated.

Even Distribution (Original Proposal)

  • On 5/31/2021 at 11:59pm UTC, a snapshot will be taken of all addresses on ETH and xDAI that hold the following POAPs:
    • 2020 Bankless Badge
    • 2021 Bankless Badge
  • For each address, a count of the total number of badges held by that address will be computed.
  • The total number of badges held across all addresses will be summed.
  • The share of BANK to be allocated in the airdrop will be divided equally amongst all addresses according to the following formula:

BANK claim = (87M BANK / Total # of badges) * (# of badges held by address)

  • BANK not claimed within 90 days of claims going live will be surrendered back to the community treasury.

Distribution Amount

The amount of BANK allocated is set to 29% of the retroactive distribution (87,000,000 BANK) per the following graphic:


  • Bankless DAO shall announce the new distribution scheme on its public social media properties:
    • Medium
    • Twitter
    • Substack
  • Bankless LLC, Ryan Sean Adams and David Hoffman are strongly encouraged to announce the new distribution scheme as well:
    • Podcasts
    • Discord
    • Medium
    • Twitter
    • Substack
  • A DAO member shall be appointed by the Genesis Squad to oversee the computation and distribution of BANK.
  • Once the computation is complete, the airdrop should be available within the next seven days.
  • Ninety days after the claim site goes live, claims will be deactivated and remaining funds surrendered to the community treasury.


  • Fair genesis is critical for the perception and longevity of any DAO, so it’s important that we get it right. The current proposed subscriber airdrop is flawed in several ways. This proposal more closely aligns the distribution scheme with Bankless values while addressing the concerns of our community members. Vote “For” to help assure the future we all want.


FOR (Duration-Based)

  • Abandon the “unique emails seen” distribution scheme in favor of the duration-based scheme described above.

FOR (Even)

  • Abandon the “unique emails seen” distribution scheme in favor of the even scheme described above.


  • Nothing changes; preserve the status quo of using “unique emails seen” and manual collection of ETH addresses by DAO members.

New Poll:

  • FOR (Duration-Based)
  • FOR (Even)

0 voters

Old Poll (closed):

  • FOR

0 voters


Doesn’t this mean that people who already received BANK will get a second airdrop?
Yes, however, that would be the case under the current genesis proposal as well. This proposal is only concerned with the distribution mechanism, not the target audience of the second airdrop.

Won’t this cause a rush of new subscribers who are only interested in claiming BANK to dump?
No. This is known as a Sybil attack and is impossible under this proposal. Anyone who subscribed in May or later would only be eligible to claim their badge on June 1st or later, which is after the deadline.

Shouldn’t we be providing extra compensation to those who forgot to claim their badge? People who already claimed are double dipping.
This is a controversial topic and a distraction from the main purpose of this proposal, which is to get away from the email-based allocation scheme. If the DAO wants to provide additional compensation for those who forgot to claim their badge, that should be a separate proposal.


  • In my day job, I am a backend software engineer in growth at a FANG company. I am deeply passionate about crypto and its ability to manifest financial liberation for humanity, which is why I am so excited about Bankless DAO. Crypto has instilled in me a sense of purpose and contribution that little else has, and I pledge to strive for the advancement of Bankless values.

If I’m understanding this correctly, we’re giving everyone a chance to sign up and claim a badge before 5/31/2021, and then dropping $BANK proportional to the number of badges held per account?

Does this mean I can have multiple subscriptions and claims multiple badges, inflating the amount of $BANK I receive?

The only ones who would qualify are ones who have been given a badge from being a member in April. If they signed up in May they wouldn’t receive a badge until June, so they would not qualify.

So no Sybil attack


If this proposal is simply to reward folks who never claimed their badge prior to May 1, then why is this not coming from the 20/21 badge holder allocation? Why is it coming from the “premium” allocation?

If it does come from the “premium” allocation, why does it have to be 100% of the pool?

It isn’t. The group of eligible claimants is identical to the current proposal. Anyone who subscribed in April or earlier would be potentially eligible, regardless of whether they missed the initial airdrop or not.

This merely changes the distribution formula for the premium member drop from being based on “unique emails seen” to possession of badges. It’s 100% of the pool because the group of recipients is the same.

I am just wondering, does this mean Badge holders who already have participated in the drop will get another airdrop of $BANK?

Regardless of my above Question; I am also of the opinion, that there should be some slashing for this second airdrop, as the active members had already redeemed their badges & have been more active in the community in general.

We should encourage taking some risks and being the first to “venture westwards”, not just “treck along with the pack once gold was found”.

I like sticking to Badges, as everyone who was eligible for the drop has the right to a badge token too, so the risk of a sybil attack is (around) nil. :slight_smile:


Correct! But that was the case before this proposal as well.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by “slashing” here? Are you suggesting we allocate less to late claimers?

Personally, in the interest of simplicity and goodwill I’d prefer we just keep things even. There has been enough salt already and tilting things even more in favor of early claimers would likely further alienate some people. This second airdrop is an olive branch to those who claimed late, while providing additional benefits to those who claimed early.


This makes sense to me. Ryan/David gave us ample opportunity to claim our POAPs, but it’s not like they could tell us it would be used for a retroactive DAO airdrop. Supported :+1:


I can subscribe to that. There was a lot of hate in the main discord room and that needs to be put in the past! :peace_symbol:


This seems to just be an additional distribution to badge holders who already have received BANK. I don’t get the point, other than we’re just trying to distribute more BANK to ourselves, based on zero additional qualifications.

1 Like

This is precisely why I don’t like this proposal. Why are we giving a second airdrop to people who have already claimed?!

I’m sorry, but why would we allow people who already claimed their drop, to then claim a second drop?

I agree! I don’t understand why we are awarding more bank to people who have already gotten a drop.

The question you’re asking is a separate one than the one under consideration in this proposal.

Under the current rules set forth in the genesis proposal (overwhelmingly passing), users who previously received BANK would still get a second airdrop, except it would be based on the flawed metric of “unique emails seen.” This proposal is about changing the criteria to be based on badges.

If you feel strongly that the second airdrop should exclude those who already received BANK, I’d suggest creating a separate proposal.

I think if anything it should just eliminate that drop. This is different, but not better. And TBH I’d be receiving more with this, but still think it’s pointless.

I think this is a fair proposal. Bankless Llc can remind bankless premium subscribers for the next 3 weeks to claim badges through email and on the podcast. (Just as they have been doing for weeks prior) And after that their hands are clean.
You can lead a horse to the water but you can’t make it drink. There’s gotta be some initiative in the community.


I agree the metric of unique emails seen is flawed, but I can’t agree fully with this proposed distribution.
This will give 2020 badge holder even greater unporpotional part of the distribution a dez 2020 badge claimer already has over 3x token of a jan 2021 badge claimer and this will compound this even further.
an everyone is the same like on other airdrops (e.g. UNI) I think is better in this case.
Apart from that, can’t be seen on substack how long an email is subscribed to the newsletter and this be used for a metric? And also an unique claim link per email address created?


I just updated the proposal with a duration based option :slight_smile: Thanks for sparking this idea.


Ther are a few different drops, as I understand it:

  • Initial drop for those who claimed the badge after WEEKS of being asked
  • Secondary drop for those who have held on [is it 90 days?]
  • Olive Branch drop for those who didn’t claim on time but still felt entitled to them as premium members

Could we take any unclaimed coins after 90 days and instead of returning to the treasury use them as a proportional drop for the group that had claimed the badges initially? It’s not elegant and I can imagine the Olive Branch people would still have concerns, but it is a path forward.

@birchbranch - The second drop is also the “olive branch”.

I think your proposal is worth considering, but not in the scope of this discussion.