[RFC] Stop increasing supply with daily claims - assign a better vesting criteria for NFT-based HFTs

  • Title: Stop increasing supply with daily claims - assign a better vesting criteria for NFT-based HFTs
  • Author(s): @parsasbr
  • Related Discussions: All vesting discussions
  • Submission Date: 01/01/2023

Body Paragraphs:

  • Simple Summary: New Vesting Criteria for NFT-based HFTs + Put the NFT holder HFT awards in a “sanctuary”

Close daily claims and instead open claims every three months
Claim dates will be: 1 March - 1 June - 1 September …

Separate people into 3 groups: G1 - G2 - G3

  • G1: people who hold or staked more than 70% of their HFTs that they claimed from Nov 7, 2022 to Jan 1, 2022
  • G2: people who hold or staked less than 20% of their HFTs that they claimed from Nov 7, 2022 to Jan 7, 2023
  • G3: people who aren’t in groups1&2 (hold or staked 20-69%)

:warning: Why G2 snapshot date is different? There are many users that they transferred their HFTs into CEXs or Cold wallets so this will give them a chance to be on G3 (transfer back tokens)

G1 schedule:
As these people showed that they aren’t dumpers, we can vest them faster as follow:

  • people with > 200K to vest = 1k HFT daily (whale protection)
  • people with > 100K to vest = 1,5k HFT daily
  • people with < 100K to vest = fully unlock at first station (1 March)

:warning: You might be worried about sell pressure, but as you know G1 showed their loyalty so don’t worry!

G2 schedule:
Using @gxmxni’s vest schedule in this proposal for G2 :arrow_heading_down:

It’s better than terminating their tokens! :arrow_heading_up:

G3 schedule:
Using native vesting schedule (1k daily for everyone) except whales :no_entry: :whale:
If the total unvested amount is > 200k → 500 HFT daily
User with 90k HFT to vest in G3 = fully unlocked at first claim station (1 March 2023)
User with 200k HFT to vest in G3 = 45k unlocked at first claim station (1 March 2023)

If it's hard to understand, click here

User with 90k HFT to vest in G3 = 1000 daily * 90 days = 90000 HFTs at claim station (fully unlocked)

User with 200k HFT to vest in G3 = 500 daily vest * 90 days = 45000 HFTs at every claim station
His release schedule will be like this:

  • 45k at 1March 2023
  • 45k at 1June 2023
  • 45k at 1September 2023
  • 45k at 1December 2023
  • 20k at 1March 2024


  1. Addresses a lot of the FUD not only in our community but in crypto space too
  2. Increases the confidence of HFT holders
  3. It allows for HashVerse to be developed
  4. Stop increasing daily supply

Specification & Rationale:

  • This proposal is written considering the interests of all groups. Without sacrificing loyal users and small holders. Also, by adjusting the vesting criteria, It considers the interests of whales and new users as well. Fortunately, It prevents the spread of FUD in the community
  • Put the NFT holder HFT awards in a “sanctuary” - neither the amount nor the vesting schedule would be changeable by any subsequent proposal.


What are G1 G2 G3? G=Group
what are claim stations? opening claims every three months: (1March-1June-1Septembe-1December) these are claim stations!

  • Benefits (Pros): It has benefits for everyone, Hashgangs - whales - airdropers - those who transferred tokens and HFT itself.
    3 months between every claim stations would give HFT a chance to recovery but current vesting schedule would not! (daily claim and sells)

  • Downside (Cons): Might create a sell pressure at claim stations, indeed it’s better than increasing daily supply

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


This proposal appears to be more flexible than the previous proposals.
It is thoughtful and well-organized.
I support this one. :+1:

1 Like

In case , Team still have plan to change release schedule of NFT Allocate.
I will support this proposal for Reduce sell pressure for now and keep allocate for NFT of Early Contributor.
Then , Team have time for build and launch product at quater by quater to increase buying power.

1 Like

I agree with your proposal, this is a perfect proposal, you have considered all the circumstances, not just simply lock everyone for 4 years.

1 Like

This proposal looks better than most of other ones.
But need some clarifications about claim dates for each group


Support this proposal, flexibility for all parties.

Best suggestion, I fully support it

1 Like

To be more fair, i have changed snapshot dates also for G1

I vote for. That equalizes everyone

00:00 UTC 1March-1June-1Septembe-1December for all groups

  1. From TGE, Nov 7
  2. A distinction between G1 and G3 is necessary

Could you specific time for snapshot ?
23.59 UTC or Whats time for

  • G1: people who hold or staked more than 70% of their HFTs that they claimed from Nov 7, 2022 to Jan 1, 2022 ( xx.xx UTC )
  • G2: people who hold or staked less than 20% of their HFTs that they claimed from Nov 7, 2022 to Jan 7, 2023 ( xx.xx UTC )
1 Like

23:59 UTC for both of them :white_check_mark:

1 Like

Perhaps we should add this to the main sentence as the estimated time for all shots

1 Like

Please modify the proposal to add the exact snapshot time

This the best proposal we have right now, but I don’t think the one with 2 million voting power who has large volumes of unclaimed tokens vote pass for this.

Thanks for putting this together. I love your effort to create fairness and equity here. Below are my concerns:

1/ Releasing all the tokens in one go for anything (whether it’s a cliff amount or a full amount) is generally not advised – every large unlock generates FUD. This proposal proposes full unlocks on multiple occasions, which IMO is problematic.

2/ Some snapshot dates are in the future. Snapshot dates that are in the future tend to be problematic because they are easy to game. If these thresholds are supposed to mean anything, they should not be gameable. If not, they should be removed altogether (see my proposal).

3/ I don’t think we should look at behavior at all. The reality is, there is not enough transparency when it comes to what being a holder is – I have heard of cases where people held 500K+ tokens on Binance. It’s impossible to tell what those balances are. There is also the “transfer to cold wallet” use case. These are the main reasons why the previous proposal (that passed) was quite unfair to the users.

4/ I think March is going to be too soon for many people. It’s pretty clear to me that the new community wants to see a more flattened out, somewhat delayed emissions chart.

I support – it’s flexibility and reasonableness for all

the proposal is fair and we all want something like this, however there are some people with huge voting power that are looking to cut off the emissions, so i do not think they would let these kinds of proposal pass on snapshot!

I support this proposal, altough we have seen the team’s vision and their relationship with whales.

For example, this comment from the CTO of this protocol clearly indicates that he knew about the unfair and buggy proposal. But, he didn’t take a minute to post this comment and warn users on that proposal but did it here (omg how did it become your concern suddenly?), and everybody knows why, because it’s not in his favor. Instead, he did what he wanted to do in silence during the new year holidays. They implemented the proposal just a few hours after getting confirmed (right in the holidays!), without ever publishing the affected addresses and total amount of affected HFTs anywhere officially.

Your proposal is the last fair proposal for both community and whales, if it gets rejected, then I leave Hashflow and sell 100%, and will talk about its bad reputation wherever possible.