[RFC] Reschedule vesting of high potential sellers to slow down token emission

Body Paragraphs:

  • Simple Summary: The related proposal which is on voting, attempted to terminate tokens of wrong users without any clear criteria. This proposal tries to fix it by not terminating but instead rescheduling and announcing clear criteria.

  • Abstract: NFT holders contain two groups of users: 1) loyal community members who contributed to the protocol in many campaigns. 2) secondary market buyers. We should respect their time/effort and money spent on NFTs. Currently, they have daily vesting at 1K ceiling and many proposals were sent on Snapshot to change the vesting and allocation somehow.
    Generally, I disagree with any changes that have been written and documented months ago but if we insist on it let’s do it with fewer side effects.

  • Motivation: It is disheartening to see the disregard for the ecosystem shown by large and consistent sellers. This constant sell pressure during the early stages of the HFT launch is toxic and could damage the protocol and the interests of all participants.
    By saying that, we can somehow act on high-potential sellers and slow their selling behavior down.

    Who will be affected: Those addresses that have less than 40% HFT on Jan 5, 2023, at 00:00:00 UTC compared to the snapshot timeline.

    Snapshot timeline: TGE(Nov 7, 2022) - Jan 4, 2023, at 23:59:59 UTC

    Specification: Collect data for claimed HFT for each holder in the mentioned snapshot timeline, then it will be compared to [HFT balance + vested tokens + HFT on pools] on Jan 5, 2023, at 00:00:00 UTC, if it’s:

    • 30% < x <= 40%: unvested tokens will be rescheduled to vesting for 3 months.
    • 20% < x <= 30%: unvested tokens will be rescheduled to vesting for 6 months.
    • x <= 20%: unvested tokens will be rescheduled to vesting for 9 months.

    After that, put the NFT holder HFT awards in a “sanctuary” – neither the amount nor the vesting schedule would be changeable by any subsequent proposal.

  • Benefits (Pros):

    1. By choosing Jan 5 as the snapshot date we allow users to return their HFT to the original wallet so addresses with transfers will not be affected unfairly. And also another reason is that: 2 days this post will be on the forum + 5 days on voting + enough time for users to withdraw from pools if necessary. (on the related proposal users that transferred will be affected)

    2. By rescheduling vesting of affected users we will not terminate their allocation ever, instead we slow down their behavior. (on the related proposal it will be terminated)

    3. By having a dynamic %, we will not act the same with different sellers.

    4. By considering vested tokens we will not affect a user that claimed and sold only 1K out of 10K. (on the related proposal it means 100% so terminate the rest of the allocation)

  • Downside (Cons):

    1. I’m against any change to users’ allocation and vesting by measuring their past behavior.
    2. I think it will be hard for the team to implement it, but if we’re talking about something this much important it should be crystal clear and with enough conditions.

Voting:

  • “Yes” to implement the specification and any subsequent proposal attempting to amend these terms shall be deemed to pose systemic risk to the DAO.

  • “No” to continue HFT vesting for NFT holders that fit the current criteria

11 Likes

Interesting one, since “terminate vesting” topic is not disclosed in original proposal at all

I like the idea :white_check_mark: it’s better than Terminate vesting

1 Like

Interesting point! And the question is do they(+ voting propsoal) improve the protocol? Do they provide any utility for HFT? Absolutely not.
I just see trying in vain to make up for the loss in high-priced HFT buyers and they can’t endure it.
Things are getting complicated, I wish we could let it go whatever it was before.

This proposal explains details of this one:

@WorldWind , @neil.s I’m on your side guys. I’m really tired of proposals targeting NFT holders. They followed the token distribution table and vesting plan but still targeted, I said that on this proposal too.
The only thing that made me write this proposal is the incomplete and greedy proposal in Snapshot that is on voting right now! Just look at it, full of bugs. I’m saying if someone insists on “changing something for NFT holders so that I can gain benefits” then let’s do it with more attention and fewer side effects. But if you have any questions or suggestions for this proposal, please let me know.

2 Likes

This proposal looks more flexible than the current proposal on snapshot for voting. (Terminate…)

I’ve given my overall thoughts on these type of topics here

I can agree with this proposal, but in order to solve the proposals that are constantly overturned later, it is required to add Put the NFT HFT award holder in “sanctuary” - neither the amount nor the vesting schedule can be changed by any subsequent offer

1 Like

Thanks for mentioning this. I’ve just added:

And

i agree because now have just many proposal need steal HFT form NFT

I think this proposal is absolutely better than the other vesting proposals so if we can’t finally stop the NFT holders’ vesting … yes, I support this one.
Clear criteria, not terminating anyone’s allocation, and not so long locking period.

Yes, I support this proposal!
It’s in everyone’s best interest, and it’s aimed at the best!

2 Likes

Compared to the existing proposals, this proposal is one of the good options and I support it. :+1:

1 Like

I express my support for this proposal

Cool dude :slightly_smiling_face: unfortunately not the team nor the whales don’t care about your proposal. All community members proposals will go straight down to the trash and will be archived. If they put your proposal into voting they will show big No finger into your face by their whale servants Bob, Bib, Boob.
I just laughed non stop when I wrote this :)))))))

Update: I’ve just applied the latest changes due to this comment from the CTO of Hashflow:

Changed from “locking as VeHFT in Hashverse” to → “Reschedule vesting”, so that this proposal will stay possible to implement and less buggy! Let’s see what will happen next :slight_smile:

@0xZZ
I think we should specify the exact date and time of the start of unlocking (so as not to raise additional questions)

No I disagree with this proposal and it will add more pressure selling on token