[Implemented] Put NFT-based HFT in sanctuary, align NFT vesting period with team and early backers

  • Title: Put NFT-based HFT in sanctuary, align NFT vesting period with team and early backers

  • Author(s): @gxmxni

  • Related Discussions:

  • Submission Date: 12/29/2022

Body Paragraphs:

  • Simple Summary: Alter HFT rewards as follows:
  1. Vest all to-date unvested HFT for NFT holders according to the following schedule:

If the total unvested amount is <25K HFT:

  • 100% vested and unlocked at one-year cliff (linearly over a 60-day period beginning on Nov 7, 2023)

Otherwise, if the total unvested amount is <50K HFT:

  • 50% vested and unlocked at one-year cliff (linearly over a 60-day period beginning on Nov 7, 2023)
  • 50% vested and unlocked daily over the 12 months thereafter

Otherwise, if the total unvested amount is <75K HFT:

  • 33.33% vested and unlocked at one-year cliff (linearly over a 60-day period beginning on Nov 7, 2023)
  • 66.66% vested and unlocked daily over the 24 months thereafter

For all other users:

  • 25% vested and unlocked at one-year cliff (linearly over a 60-day period beginning on Nov 7, 2023)
  • 75% vested and unlocked daily over the 36 months thereafter
  1. Put the NFT holder HFT awards in a “sanctuary” – neither the amount nor the vesting schedule would be changeable by any subsequent proposal
  • Abstract: The Hashflow community has been divided, and the polarization is apparent given the focus of recent proposals. These proposals have generated dissent between the first camp, who want to eliminate emissions, and the second camp, who are loyal users who want to keep the rights to their previously earned HFT (and rightly so).

This proposal recommends a way forward that would be amenable to both camps, and would allow governance to focus on what matters the most: improving the trading experience, creating new technology and new partnerships, launching the Hashverse, and creating more utility for HFT.

On the one hand, we would extend vesting pertaining to NFTs. This should allow for Hashverse to be fully rolled out (more token utility), and resonate with the community members who are fighting to slow down emissions.

On the other hand, NFT holders would a) get their rewards in full b) not have to worry about subsequent proposals trying to alter their rewards.

Many NFTs were purchased on secondary markets and these owners have expressed their concerns about their tokens being treated in a manner that is inconsistent with other Hashflow early backers. This proposal addresses those concerns by standardizing these vesting periods and rendering these tokens immune to any further DAO proposals.

  • Motivation: What problems will this proposal address/solve? What’s the value-add?

This proposal aims to create a middle ground that:

a) increases the confidence of HFT holders

b) addresses a lot of the FUD currently running in the community

c) aligns the community on a shared goal of creating the best trading experience, as well as generating utility for HFT

  • Specification & Rationale:

For 1: A snapshot would be taken of all unvested HFT for NFT holders. Distribution of this balance would be paused until the one-year cliff, at which point, 25% of this balance would be unlocked and distributed linearly over a 60-day period beginning on Nov 7, 2023. The remaining 75% of the balance of unvested HFT would be distributed evenly and monthly over the following 36 months (once the initial 25% has been fully distributed).

For 2: There is no need for formal implementation. Any subsequent proposal attempting to amend these terms shall be deemed to pose systemic risk to the DAO.

  • Benefits (Pros): Finding a way to unite the community and have it focus on the best interest of the protocol.

  • Downside (Cons): Not a lot, given the current state of things.

  • Voting: “Yes” to implement, “No” to skip

1 Like

This is great - I support this proposal. Let’s do this!

Agree in option 2.

Disagree with option 1, 4 years is too much. NFT holders ,most of them are bought from 2rd marketplace with average cost 0.4$-0.5$, while seed investors cost are 0.02$.

They paid more time cost and money cost,isn’t fair to them…and investors have x10 more tokens than NFT holders and this will massively dilute NFT holder’s values.


The purpose of point 1 is to address the emission-related concerns that make so many people target NFT holders. In my opinion, the proposal should give them enough for them to support it. Without it, I am afraid that whales would not agree with such a sanctuary and will keep trying to take the HFT away.

Although I agree that we need to solve the current situation, I think the proposal is biased towards the whales that stop the distribution of nft. In my proposal, I told the reasons for stopping the change. Because of various reasons, any changes made now are not good for nft holders. It’s all unfair. If the implementation of this proposal is equivalent to the recognition of the complaint against nft holders, in fact both victor and we know that the reason for the price drop does not come from nft holders. 4 years is a long time. NFT holders should have no vesting time, and then changed it to 1 year vesting, and now because of some unreasonable allegations, they need to compromise and change the vesting time to 4 years. Also most nft holders get their full share, so this 4 year vesting is too harsh and unfair. I suggest revising the proposal to 2 years + get some rewards from locked positions, and give this part of the locked hft voting rights, so that nft holders can participate in the governance of dao.

Disagree, stop targeting NFT holders!!

Is a user with only 10K HFTs equal to Team and Investors with millions of HFTs ??

Is this fair? Same behavior as team and backers to small HFT holders is not fair at all.

This user with 10K HFT have to wait to claim his token over 4 years!!


Please edit this proposal and make a distinction between whales and poor small holders.

1 Like

I support option 2 stop fud


Agree with this proposal

I support option 2 and totally disagree about option 1. We should respect all users and keep promises. If you’re talking about whales or whatever, why we never talked about LPs that don’t have any vesting and even ceiling to claim? No, the way you’re talking about NFT holders is totally wrong. Now you’re saying whales are upset because we let them to be upset and vote with their full bags!

1 Like

I totally disagree, NFT holders have a straightforward vesting plan already! Which is not in favor of new buyers and LPs who claimed their 100% tokens!

It started 30 days after TGE and with 1K daily max, Why would we ever need to extend it to 36 months? Are you kidding me?
We all know that you guys let the LPs go easy and now they have 100% voting power and they did whatever they wanted to do without anyone accusing them.

No, we can focus on improvements by not changing any promises already set! This proposal literally means get rid off NFT tokens for a long time so we can do whatever we want!

This proposal will bring more FUDs, I wrote a proposal to somehow slow down sellers (and fix bugs of the current voting proposal) but yours not only postpone tokens for a long time, but also include every single NFT holder.

And please never ever compare NFT holders to the team and investors, it’s nothing, almost zero compared to them! So you’re going to dump on us later and we have to just watch :slight_smile:


I disagree with behaving us like team and backers for vesting schedule. Specially for small holders is too much unfairness.
Why LP rewards don’t have vesting schedule and daily limited emession?

Attention everyone I have created a new proposal here, related to NFT holders HFTs and Price Protection. Please read here:

I disagree with this, i do think we should do it for those who hold less than 20% of claimed HFT, not for users who hold all of their tokens! this proposal will give users like me less voting power and has benefits only for airdrop hunters, not true hashgangs!


I disagree with this proposal, not all NFT holders are the same.
Some are whales, some have small amount of HFTs.
We can also expect a severe HFT dump on November 7, 2023.
Respectfully, What is your plan for the protection of the HFT price on that date?


respectfully I disagree!
NFT holders are already subjected to multiple changes! personally I am not worried about myself even if putting All my remaining unvested tokens on the stake or vesting them for 4 years, I am here to stay , but I do know that some people bought nfts from secondary market with 0.5$-0.4$ and they are down already and wants their tokens! 4 years is so long that even the first investors wont accept that! the remaining tokens from nft rewards are estimated 2% from total supply and this amount should not make much truble and sell pressure as you said!
however we can put vesting on remaining HFTs that belongs to real hashgangs! (not those who paid for hfts in secondary market).
I can write a proposal for it!
put HFTs that originally belongs to hashgang on vesting through VeHFT and let those remainings to be unlocked as before ! please let me know what you think!


Agree with your point.
Should also mention that some NFT holders bought them for 0.4/HFT.
Not really honest to lock and vest them for 4 years.
Like we have already had 1 month of cliff, compared to LP/trading and some vendors rewards.

Team+investors rewards == 19%+25 == 44%
25% unlocked in a year == 11%.
Total amount of 2.5-3% (NFT rewards) is nothing compared to the numbers above.


Btw, we can’t avoid sell pressure and somehow protect token price.
All these discussions are to postpone all these things, but not to avoid.


Hi everyone – I adjusted the proposal to account for bucketing. That way, while preserving the emissions schedule almost fully, smaller holders get their tokens faster.

1 Like

Is it possible to Convert these Unvested HFTs into veHFTs just for Voting purposes?

1 Like

Please separate the token holders who buy nft in the secondary market, we buy nft to get tokens according to the rules your team promised, 4 years is too harsh for our holders at a cost of 0.4-0.7$.

Conversion to veHFT should only happen for max lock time – which would be too long. It also poses more whale risk to governance – accentuating the issues we already have.

1 Like