[RFC] Stop vesting HFT to NFT holders who dumped most of their HFT

[therealhash]

Proposal Structure

• Title: Stop vesting HFT to NFT holders who dumped most of their HFT
• Author(s): therealhash
• Related Discussions:
• Submission Date: November 22 2022

Body Paragraphs:

• Simple Summary: do not vest HFT coming from NFT rewards to users who have less than 40% of claimed HFT in their account.

• Abstract: on Day 1 – most “real” hashgangs dumped all their tokens – see this dash: https://dune.com/queries/1549626/2595500

they already got paid more than enough for their NFTs! they will continue to dump continuously as they receive more HFT.

as long term HFT holder, I suggest that we don’t vest HFT to people who sold more than 60% of their claimed HFT, and keep the HFT in DAO treasury.

this can result in quite significant (Team can give data??) savings for the Community.

Team should provide us with more data on how much could be saved and how much top accounts have!

• Motivation: Save HFT for community, do not further reward dumpers.
• Specification & Rationale: This will have a great effect on HFT: reduce sell pressure, make sure HFT is not dumped by airdrop hunters.
• Benefits (Pros): Less sell pressure on HFT, more HFT for future community growth
• Downside (Cons): No
• Voting: “Yes” to stop awarding HFT to NFT holders who dumped more than 60% “No” to keep awarding them HFT

[Alustath]

good idea, can be merged with my next proposal to use these HFTs to compensate long-term investors who bought above $1

[gxmxni]

@therealhash This is very interesting. First off, I would like to understand more where the 40% is coming from. I’m not saying it’s a bad number, I am just curious if it is based on any data.

On our side, we can provide data on on:

• how much is left to be vested by all accounts that have NFT awards
• how much the top accounts have / how much they have already sold (this should be on-chain, and accounted for in the Dune dash that you provided)

Note: I have not yet validated the correctness of the Dune dash, but eyeballing it looks correct.

@Alustath I provided some extra feedback on your other proposal. TL;DR – I don’t think any proposals should have to do with HFT price on the open markets. However, using HFT to incentivize long term holders / contributors is generally in the interest of the protocol

[memento7mori]

The proposal to motivate and reward long-term HFT token holders/investors seems fair and logical. But we need to develop a unified and more understandable mechanism for this process.
That’s why I would personally like to hear the opinions of various community members and the real #hashgang

[therealhash]

40% is just starter idea I think we need more data from you ser!

[Evgeny]

Hmm… not sure how I feel about this one, but keep in mind people have traded NFTs for about ~40c per HFT and so for those that didn’t get it for “free” that would not be fair right? You are suggesting to rug them from their tokens.

[Evgeny]

Also the Dune dashboard needs to account for people who deposited HFT (on ETH/BNB) in the pool - would be wrong to show 0 when in fact they deposited.

[parsa]

Benefits for HFT holders is a good idea but i’m against the idea as:

• We can’t track data from centralized exchanges (some users just transferred HFT to CEXs and haven’t sold)
• Someone bought NFTs from market (or bought HFT from OTC) so just eliminating them will increase the FUD
• We didn’t have any agreements about not selling HFTs at day 1, so they didn’t do anything technically agains the rules
• it would require much time, and i think it’s better for team to focus on hashverse

[gxmxni]

Computed some data, as it can be seen below.

In total, about 31,879,745 HFT (~3.1% of the network) is left to be disbursed via NFT vests. This won’t be disbursed linearly, as we have a 1,000 HFT floor per GRANT. Some accounts have multiple grants (delegation, sybil activity).

In terms of how much is concentrated into the Top X accounts, data is as follows:

• Top 10: 8,944,720 HFT (0.9% of total supply)
• Top 25: 13,444,952 HFT (1.3% of total supply)
• Top 50: 18,111,331 HFT (1.8% of total supply)
• Top 100: 23,718,201 HFT (2.4% of total supply)
• Top 250: 30,885,632 HFT (3% of total supply)

I also pulled some data in terms of how much the top accounts have unvested from NFTs, as well as 25th, 10th, 250th. For the top 10 accounts, I pulled the number of HFT claimed, the number of HFT currently in their wallet, as well as observed OpenSea activity. Information can be found below:
- 1: unvested: 1,870,894 claimed: 636,575 in wallet: 0
- 2: unvested: 1,798,715 claimed: 54,058 in wallet:0 — spent 120 ETH on buying NFTs
- 3: unvested: 1,287,959 claimed: 107,058 in wallet: 600 — sold a ton of NFTs on OpenSea, some sybil activity
- 4: unvested: 798,533 claimed: 100,519 in wallet: 0 — spent 15-20 ETH on buying NFTs, some sybil activity
- 5: unvested: 654,145 claimed: 209,929, in wallet: 0, OpenSea: sybil activity, made money on sales
- 6: unvested: 569,774 claimed: 199,555, in wallet: 0 OpenSea: sybil activity, also spent about 10 ETH
- 7: unvested: 522,830 claimed: 121,848 in wallet: 21,848, OpenSea: spent around 40 ETH
- 8: unvested: 497,002 claimed: 31,365, in wallet: 31,365
- 9: unvested: 479,555 claimed: 71,680, in wallet: 0, OpenSea: spent around 70 ETH
- 10: unvested: 465,308 claimed: 223,805, in wallet: 0 OpenSea: sybil activity
- 25: unvested: 230,922
- 50: unvested: 147,432
- 100: unvested: 84,994
- 250: unvested: 29,976

My personal subjective interpretation of the data:

• 3% of total supply is a very large number
• NFTs were acquired at an effective 20c-30c per HFT
• a lot of HFT is concentrated to a small number of hands at the top (top 10 get almost 1% of the network, top 50 get almost 2% of the network)
• most wallets likely set up their HFT for sale
• most NFT buyers already dumped for more than they bought with the exception of one wallet (wallet number 2)

Some other thoughts, some of which relate to other comments:

• 40% seems totally arbitrary – I don’t have any opinions on what a better number would be though
• regarding people who transferred to CEX but didn’t sell – they can transfer back
• regarding HFT staked in pools – that stake can be easily computed
• regarding engineering effort to implement such a proposal: a few hours of engineering time, effort is low
• the proposal should ensure that, for example, wallet 2 above would not get screwed in order to get my support

I have some more points that I would personally want to see in order for this to make it to formal proposal form:

1. Would this be based on a snapshot of account balances? If so, what is the suggested date?
2. Would this be a one-off or would it be continuously tracked? Continuous tracking would significantly increase engineering complexity for such a thing.
3. When we say “stop vesting” do we mean cancel the vests? Or do we mean stop vesting until 40% of the amount is in the wallet?

[Gadem]

I agree with this opinion.
Some of us purchased NFTs for more than the current price, plus, 100% unlocked schedule for NFT is suddenly changed into locked. I think it was not the NFT holder who dumped first, but the LP provider. The price drop should be shared by all, not just the NFT holders. I feel it is very unfair.

[Alustath]

good stats / analysis

[therealhash]

I think use the account balance two days after proposal pass makes sense, we only do this once. then all people who want to keep the vest can bring back 40% HFT to the wallet. And I mean remove all NFT vest, not just temporary.I think even if they have LP AND NFT, dumper is dumper. they won’t change behavior. they already got paid at $1 HFT way above market returns! 30K HFT airdrop is more than generous anyway, most protocols don’t give such airdrop!

[Alustath]

exactly, they can easily re-purchase 40% at a much lower price to continue vesting

[tD1]

gm frens
tbh I don’t think this is ok.

some reasons and arguments:

** Motivation: Save HFT for community, do not further reward dumpers.**
we’ve already rewarded them, it’ll be strange to eliminate them now.
it should have been done earlier, before NFT distribution, but what’s happened is what’s happened.

** Specification & Rationale: This will have a great effect on HFT: reduce sell pressure, make sure HFT is not dumped by airdrop hunters.**
aggree, 3% is pretty high number, but 11.08% will be unlocked in a year (team&investors), even more, let’s eliminate them too, we want price to go up (joke, doesn’t make sense)

** Benefits (Pros): Less sell pressure on HFT, more HFT for future community growth**
not really clear, you want these tokens to be sent to Community Treasury?
we still keep them in circulation, what about sell pressure?

they already got paid more than enough for their NFTs! they will continue to dump continuously as they receive more HFT.
many users have bought NFTs before snapshot at 0.4-0.5

---

Conclusion:
I don’t think we can change the rules of the game and eliminate someone’s token, it’s too late to do this.
But we can change vesting details or something like this

[memento7mori]

Good analytics as always, thanks @gxmxni

[Hiker]

Thanks parsa …very good reasons to reject this proposal

[Hiker]

Hey vic
Really?? Is this intersting??
Im with hashflow more than 15 month and i spent more than $10k for many things …
Someone like me…i had 3 NFT from my friends in my wallet and i sent their token( 12k) for them…
30k claimalbe token was terminator for someone like me…not again😅
I just had 20k HFT and i sold 15k HFT for $15K …
After 15 month …
So this is not interesting and not fair…

[NIKA]

I don’t agree with this proposal, as we didn’t have any agreements about this before TGE.
Consider bear market situation which people want to make some profit due to many losses.
Plus if you take a look at Optimism or HOP TGE, the dumping process happened to their tokens in bear market as well. Plus Hashverse still weren’t built up yet, maybe users didn’t have clear vision about it and didn’t know whether they want to sell it or keep it or buy it later. (Blurry vision of future)
(And also let’s not forget some users may have their HFTs on different exchanges accounts for daily, weekly trading purposes.)
And don’t worry about HFT price, I do believe by building Hashverse and being committed to the roadmap, I mean adding more value to the product and delivering Hashflow true dreams into reality, the value (price) of HFT can go up again within few months.
So anyway, Instead of blaming and punishing the community, from my point of view this proposal can be converted into a more positive and more flexible format.

I do like to focus on Benefits for HFT holders. (Those who claimed and didn’t sell, those who bought, and those who will buy HFT before determined dates for instance before new year 2023 )

Hashflow can create a Loyalty Reward Pool without any locking mechanism.
Any type of user will be able to stake their tokens and get advantage of leverge rewards for Hashverse quests, Hashverse items or HFT tokens itself. (for different time duration e.g: 2 months staking, 4 months, 6 months … and the rewards can go 2X, 3X, 4X, etc.) or we can discuss or brain storm about it more.

This type of reward mechanism encourages old and new users for staking the HFTs plus Buying more HFTs from the market. (which helps to Pump the price).

[Hoji]

It’s not fair
I tried to do my best for hashflow on Discord, Twitter and the hashflow platform for about a year, so the result was a tier2 nft.
Since I’m usually traveling, I transferred my nft to my friend’s wallet so he could claim my tokens on launch day, but the bad news was that some part of his tokens were locked.
It’s weird that people with fake accounts are submitting proposals, and it’s even weirder that Hashflow team members are supporting them.
Earned tokens are for participating in high cost campaigns or buying nfts with high prices in the market, so this is not a good decision to vote for ppl tokens.
Selling or keeping tokens is a completely personal decision
Try to be professional

[neil.s]

I’m against this proposal.

DAO should be related to improving the ecosystem not spreading hatred and unfairness.
There are something called “Tokenomics” and “Distribution Table”, you can’t change it whenever you want, you can’t change what you signed to be for someone. You just can change what is about future.

I think decentralized world means to be free, not to be restricted by a dummy proposal which is promoted by the CTO of a company. I want to blame the team because of starting the phrase “real Hashgang”, see what it became now! During the past year, you started to divide the community members to good and bad, who ever criticized and disagreed you called them “hunter” or “not real Hashgang” and called rest of the community members “real Hashgang”.
Again, I want to blame the team because of their bad TGE, if you want to have a DAO to focus on high-school/teenage fight, OK, I’m going to write a proposal to sue the team because of their broken promise for a great and perfect TGE and decrease their token share.

To sum up, this is not a centralized world, you can’t repeatly broke promises and moreover, take back something from someone.
I decided to sell all of my tokens and use Hashflow as a good product because I haven’t seen any token utility or I haven’t got surprised by 2 JPGs of “Hashverse”, which I’m sure is a copycat of “Bridgeworld of TreasureDAO”.
You can’t make a token worthy by dictating new rules to holders or changing tokenomics, it becomes worthy when it’s worthy!

Suggestion: In the best case, maybe it makes sense to improve the reward system to make more smarter decision for future rewards.

Keep building and avoid hatred and dictatorship.
Good luck Hashflow and “ALL” community members