[HIP] Re-assign forfeited unvested grants and staking rewards & make unvested token grants and staking rewards un-expirable

Title: Re-assign forfeited unvested grants and staking rewards & make unvested token grants and staking rewards un-expirable
Author(s): @TropicThunder
Related Discussions: [Implemented] Expire HFT grants that have not been claimed for over 60 days
Submission Date: 06.12.2023 (June 12 2023)

Proposal detail:

Simple Summary:

  1. Re-allocate the forfeited unvested token grants and staking rewards because it affected active users which was not the intended consequence when implementing the 60-day expiry rule. The intention was to target inactive users.
  2. Make unvested token grants and staking rewards unexpirable, only vested token grants and trading rewards can expire from now on.

Abstract: this proposal corrects what has been an unexpected treatment to some early users of the protocol that were unaware of this new 60-day expiry rule and that were not helped by the vague UI warning. This does not not prevent these tokens to eventually be forfeited if the users are inactive for a long period, which respects the original objective.

On Jan 2 2023, the DAO approved a proposal to expire HFT grants that have not been claimed for at least 60 days. This proposal has since been implemented by the DAO as intended.

The objective of this proposal was clear: avoid wasting resources on inactive users, and it is a good objective.

Since then, it has been clear that many affected users did not understand that if they did not claim their small vested rewards, then they would lose both their vested rewards (claimable) and their large unvested rewards (unclaimable) and also their staking rewards (claimable).

The User Interface showed a warning to users that were at risk, but the wording was not clear: You have 123 HFT about to expire. Claim HFT now in order to avoid forfeiting your rewards.

There are many reported cases of users that had a couple HFT tokens to claim (vested), and thousands of HFT unvested, which were all forfeited in one go. This was not clear to users. The User Interface should have either said:

  • Claim HFT now in order to avoid forfeiting all yours rewards (vested and unvested and staking rewards) or better
  • Claim HFT now in order to avoid forfeiting all your rewards (123.456 HFT).

Highlighting the number of tokens that are at risk would have been clearer, which is why many users are now confused and it is highlighting an important point to address.


We can debate if the affected users deserved to have their HFT tokens forfeited, that is subjective and there will be two camps.

We cannot debate that the affected users who lost unvested tokens or staking rewards had actually earned these tokens fairly in the first place, by being community members one way or an other and probably still being active community members.

This whole industry started with Bitcoin and a fundamental property: you own your coins without having to trust anyone. No one can take them away from you. You do not need to log back on your wallet every two months to check they are still there, or the latest governance proposal.

Passing a proposal that forces future rewards to have to be claimed within 60 days or else they are forfeited is one thing, but to make it affect old tokens that were awarded a year before the proposal was implemented and that are locked for another 1-4 years is very different.

Behind these affected addresses there are real people with real lives. Perhaps they were offline for 2 months. Perhaps their owner unfortunately died, and they have children that would have figured out how to claim these tokens in a couple months. This is extreme but this is why the concept of property and predictability of rules are so important. You can change the rules for future rewards, but changing the rules for old rewards is a dangerous precedent, especially during a period when these tokens were meant to be locked, adding to the confusion.

I think the Hashflow proposal started with a good intention which should be kept, the DAO needs a way to get back rewards that go unclaimed for too long. But it had the unintended consequences of affecting active users and it should be corrected.


  1. Re-allocate the expired HFT grants that were vesting over four years to users on the original terms (effectively undoing the forfeiture that occured in 2023)

  2. Re-allocated the expired HFT staking rewards that were forfeited on the original terms (effectively undoing the forfeiture that occured in 2023)

  3. Make unvested token grants and staking rewards un-expirable

    Benefits (Pros):

  • sets a good precedent that DAOs should not affect old rewards with new rules, and shows that the Hashflow DAO is fair towards its early users and stakers.

  • ensures the DAO can get the rewards of inactive users back as they vest and go unclaimed over the months or years, excluding staking rewards permanently from this treatment.

  • shows good faith towards active users who were genuinely confused or unaware of the details and implication of the current 60-day rule.

  • makes staking more attractive as there is no need to claim frequently and potentially waste gas

    Downside (Cons):

  • the rewards might add sell pressure, but this point was already addressed by locking these tokens linearly over 4 years and that is still a valid mitigant.


  • Yes, in favour of re-assigning forfeited grants from unvested token grants and staking rewards, and both making unvested tokens unexpirable until they vest and making staking rewards unexpirable permanently.

  • No, against this proposal.


I agree with this proposal.

I agree with changing the algorithm as proposed by tD in the link above, but there is a point that is missing in terms of fairness. That is at the expense of those who have already expired HFT due to the 60-day rule. If the algorithm is to be changed, it should also cover those who have already lost their HFT due to the 60-day rule. I think this suggestion is correct and fair.


I am in support of this proposal - it mitigates unintended consequences of the 60-day expiry algorithm and does the right thing for the affected members of the community.

From an implementation standpoint, this is easy to conduct.

Separately, I still think that small claimable amounts could pose a problem and disincentivize small volume traders. However, that can be addressed in different proposals (@tD1 's proposal is a good example).


I agree and support this proposal.
In order to fix all the problems from the latest proposal about expired rewards, we should support both the future reward expiration algorithm proposal and all of the users that have faced the unvested expired token problem on this proposal too. This proposal will help create a better algorithm for Hashflow and bring back a strong community. We are all Hashgang.


I fully endorse this proposal and also support @tD1 suggestion to implement the expiration logic in conjunction with it. Working together, these proposals can enhance the overall system and ensure the effective management of token expiration


Thank you for the positive feedback every body, glad we are agreeing on this matter.

I also fully agree this proposal should be voted on in conjunction with @tD1’s proposal ([RFC] Upgrade rewards expiration algorithm)

With these two proposals accepted:

  1. Unvested tokens that were forfeited will be re-granted (revert the forfeiture)
  2. Unvested tokens cannot be forfeited again (unvested tokens excluded from the 60-day rule)
  3. The 60-day rule is improved for future to mitigate small users having to waste gas on Ethereum to protect their rewards that can sometimes be worth less than the gas to spend to claim them
1 Like

A few extra thoughts:

  1. We have seen cases where staking rewards get commingled with trading rewards and that could trigger an expiry. I wonder if it would make sense to make staking rewards fully immune to any kind of expiry, as staking is one of the biggest symbols of protocol loyalty.

  2. The 60-day rule is proving to be too stringent for some of the users. The intent of the original proposal was to get ABANDONED tokens back into the Community (DAO) Treasury so that they can be reused. However, some users have proven that lack of usage for 60 days does not necessarily mean abandonment. I wonder if a 1 year rule all around could be a better proxy for abandonment.

1 Like

Fully support this proposal.

1 Like

@gxmxni I think you are right on both points

  1. Losing staking rewards due to trading rewards is not ideal. I will edit my proposal to make both unvested rewards and staking rewards un-expirable as there is merit and logic for both of these class of rewards to be exluded.

  2. I agree that 60 days is short and that 1 full year would be a better check, it would already mitigate the gas threshold in many cases. This needs to be adjusted in @tD1’s proposal to adjust the algorithm from 60 to 365 days, and which should focus exclusively on trading rewards and on vested historic grants, thereby exluding unvested grants and staking rewards which will be protected with the proposal in this thread.

NEW: the original proposal has been modified to include staking rewards immunity, which is aligned with the ethos of the proposal and the discussion that is taking place.


I agree with this proposal :wink:


I agree with the one year rule as it will prevent forgetting to claim and not wasting gas money.
Assuming that the expired HFT is returned to the holder.

It’s a very good proposal.

Nice to see this proposal happen, it should be implemented soon. Bring harmony back to the community.

1 Like

I agree with this proposal.

Very cool to see the broad support for this important proposal.

I would think it has shown enough support from the community and I think it is time to move this to a vote?

The votes should be organised to be at the same time as the proposal to upgrade the reward expiration algorithm by @tD1 as they both cover the same topic so voters should consider both.

The proposal passed the temperature check with 100% voting in favour: Snapshot

I cannot edit the original post to rename it [HIP], can someone do that?

I dont have enough veHFT to submit the final vote, can someone do that?

The title of this post has been updated to β€œ[HIP]”.

Given that this is the second Temp Check passed under the new process, wanted to give more guidance on how it works from here on out (you can reference this article):

b. This forum post should remain open for minimum of 3 days before a final vote is submitted (to give time for others in the community to review and share their feedback as well)
c. Author reviews/incorporate new input/feedback that are applicable
d. Guardians have been notified to review and approve/veto this HIP
e. This HIP will need majority approval from the Guardians before it can be submitted by community for final vote - the Guardians will reply to this thread directly.


No sys risk. Matches prior prop

1 Like

This proposal is not systemically risky and is the same as the original ballot proposal

Proposal matches the original forum post and does not pose any systemic risk to the protocol.