@neil.s I’m not for or against this proposal. I have provided data to the extent that I could (took ~20 minutes of my time) and requested some changes that, in my opinion, would make it more clear and easier to put up for a vote. I also highlighted some issues that I saw with it (some wallets spent real money on buying those NFTs).
I can see how some people would be for it and other people would be against it. That’s why we have a governance process with a relatively high threshold for vote passing (over 60%). We don’t make decisions by ourselves.
I suggest that you use a tone that is less aggressive and more constructive.
@therealhash this proposal needs some changes (outlined above) in order to be considered formal.
Interesting points by people. I think being for or against the proposal is for the time it is formal and needs to be voted on
At this stage I think the important thing is getting the proposal right
I think for it to be fair, it should only consider tokens supplied for free as part of the NFT airdrops .if users purchased nfts or provided liquidity, these decisions were made with the return on investment at the time. So changing the rules after the fact is pretty unfair.
Personally I have sold less than 10% of my HFT and 100% or my HFT from TGE was immediately added to LP. But I would most likely vote no on tbe proposal as it’s a free market, people have a right to sell. It’s up to the project to make it worthwihllhile to hodl…but this is the beauty of self governance, the people will decide
Awful idea!
You can not punish most active users every time you remember there are lots of token in their hand. If you wanted to manage this better you had to provide non-tradeable NFTs.
But now we can not change rules every time we understand some people have more tokens in their hand. First you locked most of their tokens and they could get a small portion of their allocation and they had to wait for the best of community, maybe they decided to sell this small portion why we had to punish them like this??!!!
WINTERMUTE gamed the system at TGE and until now they didn’t provide enough liquidity on hashflow pools, DMM sold their token at TGE at higher prices and then after 30 min early adopters could claim their tokens. There are many things to investigate if you are interested @gxmxni .
This is awful and unfair and unreasenobale idea. It seems like the blockchain has lost its idealogy about decentralized and free enviroment. Blaming people for selling their tokens after one year and a bearmarket? Im so so so disagre with this terrible idea.
That is a thoughtful suggestion for hashflow.
However, the percentages you have proposed are not specific enough for me to understand why they should be made that way.
To date, hashflow has grown for a long time in a volatile market. It is a big deal for us as a hashgang to pay high gas prices and contribute to hashflow from the very beginning.
Those who bought NFT with HFT before listing also paid a high amount.
I think it is inevitable that those who have contributed so far will lock in their profits.
And, the profit will increase the liquidity of HFT and lead to the profit of hashflow.
Prices can swing up and down.
The fact that the market as a whole is a bear market has a lot to do with it.
However, we have adjusted the listing and distribution of HFT to suppress it as much as possible.
Hashverse is one of them.
I don’t think it is right to just cut our own losses.
If we agree to this proposal now, I think people will leave and the hashflow team will suffer.
I don’t agree with this proposal but I think it is a great proposal.
First off we need to stop The vesting of NFT rewards before Dec 9 to discuss more and find a proper solution for this.
I read different comments here and lot of arguments on what we should do with the remaining of HFT from NFT rewards. I am down for such a topic on stopping the vest of HFT dumpers but I may have a better solution for this!
unfortunately I do not know what happened to My starting topic for this but I will write it again with a little changes here!
My proposal:
Postponing the Vest of remaining HFT tokens from NFT rewards for 6 month.
at the time of vest, every wallet have to have/hold at least 40% of their total HFT allocation so they will be able to claim the rest of them within a 90 days period. for example I have 100K HFT from NFT rewards. I claimed 30K at TGE and now after 6 month I want to claim the rest.
on the first day I must have 12K worth of HFT to be able to claim my daily vest.(777 HFT per day)
for the day 2 in order to claim HFTs, the calculation would be something like this:
30K+777 = 30777HFT
30777 * 40% = 12310 HFT
and so on…
also a Certain Trading Volume needed to be able to claim the rest of HFTs relative on the size of the vest! (this section should be discussed more).
In my point of view, its really unfair. There are various reasons for holders to sell their tokens.
Firstly, as you are fully aware most of the community couldn’t claim their tokens as soon as special people who sell HFT in $4 so most of us should have sold our tokens to prevent dump.
Secondly, some of us buy NFT for tokens.
And the last not least, as you didn’t provide liquidity despite you emphasizes on it, we hat to send our tokens to CEX.
reducing all selling pressure before Hashverse will benefit this project in the long run.The current low level of HFT prices is not because of HFT distribution issues, but because of the winter season, which includes FTX.
Imagine that the snow begins to melt when starting Hashverse. That would be unbearable for those who quickly gave up HFT and saw only immediate gains.
If you are a TRUE Hashgang, you should look at project with long term too.
the vested tokens are their own tokens and Hashflow did not give it them out of thin air.
such matters should be cleared off before TGE not after it, it isn’t any of your business that what people do with their tokens, it’s THEIRS.
this is a proposal asking for theft and should not be even discussed.
you should know that people supposed to get ALL of their tokens in TGE but team already introduced vesting to decrease the pressure.
you can’t change tokenomics after you issue tokens, and btw before people were able to claim their tokens some wallets claimed millions and in one case dumped more than 600K tokens in 5$+ range in MEXC which has way less volume to Binance, if you care so much about dumping and paperhands start from there instead of abusing users who campaigned night and day for Hashflow.
Guardians should review the legal risk of this proposal - the foundation might get sued for tokens being wiped (especially in this hostile environment towards crypto from the FTX collapse).
Locking NFT holders and vesting them for a year and then cancelling the vest looks almost like a coordinated attack supported by the core team. The damage to the brand might be irreversible for breaking its own rules set by the core team prior to TGE.
Finally in some countries an airdrop is considered income/money and the tax could be up to 40% those that chose to pay tax may had no other option but to sell what’s needed to cover taxes. I would not want us to get targeted by the IRS and other tax authorities.
Should future HFT holders be worried? I hope not… but if this passes may set a dangerous precedent.
Just to make sure I am understanding this correctly - are we actually considering taking away the HFTs from community members who have supported Hashflow for more than a year because they sold their first portion of HFTs during a bear market and wider global macroeconomic crisis?
Selling your HFTs doesn’t mean you aren’t a loyal supporter - it’s simply just more important for people to pay their heating bills than it is to partake in the Hashverse (which currently consists of 2 jpegs and a couple of paragraphs).
Unfortunately, this just looks like a sad attempt by the Hashflow team to save the price of HFT at the expense of the people who helped to build its success. My advice would be to build out the story of the hashverse beyond 2 sides of A4, add some utility to the token, and get back to building
Tax point is very valid - USA is one of those countries!
Not a coordinated attack from anyone – following procedures, just like every other proposal. FWIW I’m not putting out support for this proposal in its current form, but I think that some of the ideas have merit – note that this was one of the most generous airdrops ever, yet most of the circulating supply is on Binance!
@Mehdi I see that you’re thinking deeply about this. I really think you should start by putting together a separate proposal.
FWIW - Optimism had a similar proposal and Cobie had some really good points for why it was a bad idea to do something like this. Worth the read for all those considering canceling the vest. I’d really encourage all of you to think through these more carefully before proposing and passing something in haste.
The project and team were generous to their community!
A participant could get NFT and $30k just for participating in Discord life.
But there were participants who we talk about as whales who came to line their own pockets. They don’t care about the project itself or its prospects.
We need to think about how to protect ourselves from such ruthless speculators!
As I said many times, the most important thing hashflow need to follow is to attract users to the project. When we have a great project(technologically speaking) and we want to compete with other great projects like Uniswap or dydx and etc. The most important thing we need to do is to keep our current users on the project and then try to attract more.
With these proposals that target our most active users we are motivating our active users that they were wrong about this. These feelings can be easily transferred to new users.
.
When users see that they can not trust the words and decisions because they can easily change, how they want to trust to the project itself.
.
We had many changes so far let’s concentrate on the project itself and the way we can help that to be better and attract more user.
.
Definitely agree with the sentiment around trust. I think this proposal is not well formulated and, like Varun said, written in haste!
Regarding how “active” these users are, I’m gonna run some data queries to check trading volume. Probably not today, but should post something tomorrow.
Your argument that it is a good proposal lies in the idea that selling indicates people (a) do not believe in Hashflow, (b) do not value participating in governance.
This is reasonably obviously not true for all sellers. Other reasons someone might sell include:
They think the valuation of HFT is currently too high and they can wait until it becomes aligned with their expectations in order to participate in governance, and thus have a larger governance share.
They think the valuation is okay, but they expect a post-airdrop dump. They want to buy lower and they think they can sell quickly before this “airdrop dump” happens and rebuy more HFT.
The airdrop is meaningfully large for their net worth, so selling some tokens makes a big difference to them, but they still believe in the future of HFT.
They sold on airdrop addresses and rebought on other addresses to anonymise their on-chain activity.
They have tax obligations.
They are selling 90% of their crypto portfolio because they are scared of a bear market, but they will rebuy in a couple of years.
They are fu^&!ing rekt and this $ income helps them a lot, maybe one day if they are no longer rekt they can afford to participate in governance of the projects they believe in again.
They have vested tokens and they had planned about them.
They have vested tokens and they decided to sell and keep the rest for future.
If you decide to continue this propsal which is highly promoted by the CTO, this is definitely a scam project. The team clearly published a distribution table last year and since then they have been trying to do effective things:
Changing the TGE date
Changing the tokenomics
Changing the vesting procedure
We agreed to all of them, we waited, we rescheduled, we planned again again but now they are trying to declare these tokens completely dissolved. How can you describe trust, reliability and contract in this project?
These tokens belong to the users since last year and no one has the right to decide about them unless you hesitate to say this is a 100% SCAM PROJECT.
