Badge-Based Distribution for Subscriber Airdrop

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.

Personally I think the simple solution of even distribution is the quickest way to put this behind us and avoid the potential for more issues.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this will require creating a new smart contract with a Merkle Distributor that considers the various distribution lists for each variant of POAP and the different BANK token amounts associated with each one. I am not a Solidity developer but reducing weak points in the claim process is naturally a good idea.

Finally, I think that giving the same amounts of BANK to people who did not claim their badge prior to May 4th is the easiest way to allow them to gain access to the DAO at the 35K minimum.

If we go with the duration based distribution, we create the possibility for people to fall below that amount even after going through the work to redeem the new POAP.

So I suggest if the “duration based” passes (in any form) it underscores the need to change the access requirements, but of course that is for a separate proposal.


I don’t think this is correct. The distribution list → POAP mapping would be handled operationally by the Genesis Squad, because this is a totally new POAP (old badges become irrelevant in duration based).

We’d output the list of emails by # of months subscribed, and send a different POAP to each. Then the quantity of BANK allocated to each address holding the POAP would be different based on the # of months it represents.

IMO, this is likely with both schemes, but the inequality will be worse with duration based of course. The amount given to 2021 badge holders was 37.42k, which is already barely above threshold.

EDIT: Lowering the Discord threshold is a potential way around this.

Thank you for doing this work. The more people who receive the DAO token the better it is for the values, future, marketing, social investment and skin in the game of the community. Supported EVEN but very happy with any move which broadens the token holder base in line with the generosity of the Genesis squad. Best to all.


The second airdrop will go to ALL subscribers. That was determined by the Genesis team and detailed in the announcement article. The first drop was for subscribers that claimed their badge prior to May 4. Even if subscribers received $BANK already, they are gonna receive more $BANK. This proposal isn’t to reward badge holders with more $BANK. This proposal is to distribute the second airdrop more fairly to all subscribers.

I support this proposal. I voted yes to even distribution. However, I think the same allocation to go to all subscribers. So 2020 badge holders don’t receive more than 2021 badge holders. If the method is truly even distribution, take 87,000,000 $BANK divided by total # of subscribers and allocate that amount to everyone subscribed prior to 5/1.


Hi! Thank you a lot for putting so much work in this proposal. I would vote for the even distribution to all badge holders at the moment of voting. Is it possible to add such a choice to the initial proposal?

1 Like

@Ap0ll0517 @Oli - at this point we’re not adding new options. If you feel strongly you can make your own proposal.

Discussion here: Discord

I would just leave the distribution as planned by the genesis squad. Whatever you change, it’ll always be criticized by someone. But ultimately I’m fine with what’s best for the DAO.

1 Like

I vote for an even distribution. I use an email service that includes privacy features, and I know others who do the same, and so an “emails read” distribution would put us at an unfair disadvantage since the privacy email clients we use block tracking of whether we opened the newsletter or not. Since even though we read the newsletter all the time, as far as Bankless knows it’s 0 since they can’t see it.

Privacy and decentralization are core crypto values, and punishing people for adhering to them seems very anti-Bankless.

1 Like

You can get as many subscriptions as you want but it won’t benefit you. Badges wouldn’t get issued until the 1st where as the snapshot is taken the day before. I’m not sure that would be a fun way to burn some extra cash lol

I also use a privacy based emailing system, so even distribution is probably the fairest.

1 Like

Hey folks. We’re likely to move forward with a snapshot for the “even” proposal given it’s solidly leading here >2x above “duration-based” and has a simple majority as well. Just waiting to get my address whitelisted.


Great discussion guys on this - let’s push to Snapshot in the morning!

1 Like