[Voted] Change the vesting schedule for HFTs from NFT rewards

Governance
1

Proposal Structure

  • Title: [PROJECT] Proposal to change the fee structure for vested HFTs from NFT rewards
  • Author(s): @Ps23Gold
  • Related discussion: personal initiative
  • Due date: 11/28/222

Body Paragraphs:

Simple summary:
Increase token blocking period for NFT reward by 4 months until HashVerse is fully launched, after which vesting will depend on the number of HFT.

Annotation:
As an early supporter of the project, participant and incumbent, and having participated in all the discussions before and after TGE and having read all the suggestions and discussions in the forum, I decided to take my own initiative for the entire community.

During the development of the project, there were various types of rewards (for community activity, various contests, trade rewards).

All of them, for the most part, were in the form of NFTs, which were endowed with a certain amount of HFT.

Some activities were rewarded by NFT that were endowed with an unreasonably large number of HFT tokens.

This fact prompted people who were not interested in the project, but had a speculative interest in getting hold of these NFTs as much as possible, as well as buying them up on the secondary market.

Most of these people had constant complaints about the project regarding the TGE date, which for objective reasons was postponed several times until product development and security were improved.

The main motivation was to free up their investment, but not to follow the interests and goals of the project.

The result we were able to observe during the TGE period and the statistics showed that most of these wallets sent the token for sale (as a consequence, made a profit, as most purchases were made at 0.30-0.40 cents per HFT).

The current unlock rules need to be reviewed because true fans, users and contributors to the project experience unequal treatment with speculators, which is unfair and inconsistent with the principles of decentralization, because large HFT reset stimulates constant selling.

This proposal will bring all participants (speculators, investors, opponents and supporters) into a level and fair playing field that is consistent with true decentralization principles, where management will truly belong to true supporters in a tangibly equal playing field, help keep the token price down and keep it from excessive selling pressure.

Motivation:

  • Fairness in future voting decisions
  • Getting rid of excessive sales pressure
  • Equality among project followers and keeping decentralization values
  • Attractiveness to potential investors and maintaining the sentiment of current token holders

Specification and rationale:
Extending the token lock-in period by 4 months from the TGE date (March 7, 2022).

  • people with > 200K to vest = 1250 HFT daily
  • people with > 100K to vest = 1000 HFT daily
  • people with > 50K to vest = 750 HFT daily
  • rest = 500 HFT daily

Benefits (Pros):

  • Reducing the pressure on the token by sellers
  • Increased attractiveness of the project
  • Holders remain in a stable position as conditions for them remain the same

Minuses (Cons):
Some moral dissatisfaction on the part of speculators

Voting:
Yes - for it to be implemented, No - for it not to be implemented

3 Likes
2

I vote yes!
This is a thoughtful proposal that incorporates the best of what has been proposed before.

2 Likes
3

No No No
Leave NFT holders ALONE :neutral_face::neutral_face:

4

NFT holders are still in order, because each of them will be useful in the Hashverse

5

Create proposal about important things…
Unfortunately we have many proposals about vested HFT from NFTs …but all of them failed

6

I disagree with this proposal.

NFT Holders are no ones punching bag and cannot be blamed for any price action. It’s a free market and also this isn’t an investment, it’s just a utility token that should be used for gov (you can confirm this with the team). What people choose to do with it is their own choice.

The team was very generous with the allocation for early protocol participants - it wasn’t set by the NFT holders, it was the team that decided the allocation as well as the vesting schedule.

The snapshot that was done by the team established a verbal agreement between the Hashflow Foundation and the grant recipients (NFT holders). You could see claimable balance in the UI. This was done prior to TGE/launch of the Hashflow DAO and as such is protected from these kind of proposals (I welcome the team to correct me if this is not the case). Any alternation to this would mean a massive legal battle and blow to the foundation (you bet crypto regulators are going to hunt this down because it’s a US entity) - I say this because the extension of vesting/smoothing of rewards would mean you are trying to manipulate the price and since this is not an investment, we can’t do any changes to what was promised and agreed upon.

On a personal level - seeing smoother emissions would be good, but when I gave it more thought the risk of legal battle, fud and branding damage outweighs any alteration.

2 Likes
7

Based on what you reach to this result???
Wrong info and trying to misinformed people.

Wrong information. The minimum price was that. Maximum price was around 70 cents

1 Like
8

Disagree :cherry_blossom:

Before TGE NFT holders were promised;
Users who have more than 30k HFT :point_right: the daily vesting of 1000 HFT.

In this proposal, why you did you Increase the Daily Vesting HFTs for Whales and decreased it for small holders?!

Also about blocking Period of 4 months, are you sure building Hashverse only takes 4 months? Usually building process takes longer than we expect or plans on papers.

Anyways, I highly recommend to focus more on other options :point_right: Ideas/proposals about using HFTs for different purposes.

As like;

01-HashflowForumNika
01-HashflowForumNika1920Ă—1920 194 KB

02-HashflowForumNika
02-HashflowForumNika1920Ă—1920 138 KB

7 Likes
9

I Disagree

Where do 4 months come from? Do you have more information than us? How are you sure it will be done in 4 months? So, rejected. And after all, this is the owner’s decision to hold for future plans of Hashflow or don’t.

Wrong, it was more than that but less than 1$.

Changing the daily unlock and increasing it for whales and making it less for smaller ones? and you talk about fairness? What was wrong with the team’s announced ceiling, 1000 HFT? So, rejected.

I don’t understand this proposal and I don’t see any meaningful thoughts in it, it is just another try to accuse NFT holders of having tokens! and it’s just another unsuccessful attempt for changing the contracts and rules which has announced months ago.

  • Speaking of fairness and decentralization in the blockchain world, my tokens are mine. your tokens are yours!

  • Speaking of tokens and trading, trading exists in the crypto world and is not prohibited. There is even a trading channel in Hashflow Discord where people talk about ups and downs! Can you blame someone for thinking something worth more or less? Or you dictate to users to not post any [sell] signal just go to the moon?

Which one of these sections is wrong and not the user’s right?

After these greedy proposals I’m completely disappointed about NFT staking and other stuff. Because I don’t see any talk about token utility and the only effort is to cut it down.

2 Likes
10

It’s always amusing to see these accounts that immediately pop up when it comes to NFTs and their holders :rofl: :man_facepalming:

These participants offer nothing themselves, but constantly criticize everyone

I’m in favor of this proposal, it’s time we put it to a vote - that would check the real decentralization and voting rights with HFT tokens, not empty words on the forum!

11

You set the price for your own purchase and investment - so this guy got it right, it was the average price on OpenSea

And if you’re talking about tokens, so use them in voting and management, you have and will have a chance, otherwise it’s just talk, no point
That token has to govern, if you don’t have one, then you’re just talking for no reason

1 Like
12

You are especially afraid of all the problems with blocking awards for the NFT.
I have noticed that you always make the same arguments, and it is the same thing

You are actively involved in the project, but I haven’t seen a single suggestion or question from you other than to get a grant to develop something …

1 Like
13

Yep I have an idea on what I want to build and get a grant for - what’s your point? It takes time to iron out all the details, including getting a designer onboard. I don’t want to send a proposal in a rush.

I’d prefer if we all focus on utility instead of these nonsense proposals that are literally doing no good to no one.

14

disagree.
you frens are talking about “I’m hashgang, true holder, etc”, but you want to change the rules of the game for someone.
but if we gonna hold, why do we care about token price?
it’s their choice to hold or sell token.

re: " a level and fair playing field that is consistent with true decentralization principles, where management will truly belong to true supporters in a tangibly equal playing field, help keep the token price down and keep it from excessive selling pressure" .
“true decentralization” is about decentralization, the general idea is to get as much users involved as we can.

one more question about “true fans, users and contributors to the project experience unequal treatment with speculators…because large HFT reset stimulates constant selling”:
don’t really understand the point, you mean they can sell more faster and larger amounts than you, or what?
again, if you’re true holder, you shouldn’t worry about HFT price, those who want can sell – new users will get an opportunity to join the DAO.

there is no reason to keep speculators in DAO, if they don’t want to stay with project – it’s their choice

I think you’re more carried about yourself, maybe you want to vest their tokens for longer period to sell yours at higher price, idk.
but this proposal is not about decentralization, you argue back to yourself:
you want protocol to be decentralized while you want “whales” to keep their tokens vested

3 Likes
15

btw, I don’t think it’s fair to change the rules of the game.
we’ve already distributed 10m+ of LP/trading vested tokens (Jul - Nov) within 30 days, but you disagree to distribute 30m within a year :slight_smile:

1 Like
16

I don’t agree with that , extend the lock-up is just delayed the sell pressure , but sell pressure is always exist.

we should not focus on how to decrease the sell pressure but instead create more utilities to HFT and bring value to it, increase the HFT demands is the only solution.

3 Likes
17

The point is that everyone only wants to be interested in their own views, but no one wants to think about the common good, which is what I am talking about and observing.

18

I see a consistent and balanced proposal.

But again, we see participants who also whine and hate the project, that there is no launch of TGE and the fear of not making and missing out on the benefits.
There are always dissatisfied, and there always will be.

But the good thing is that with the launch of DAO we will be able to choose - this is real decentralization, not the opinion of one group of people.

It’s about time we put this kind of discussion out there for a public decision, so I support it!
Let the community make its own choices!

19

In this situation, we suffer more from other factors and to do something that benefits the community as a whole rather than individuals would make a lot more sense.

20

“In this situation, we suffer more from other factors and to do something that benefits the community as a whole rather than individuals would make a lot more sense.” (c) Ps23Gold

that’s why we should stop all these vesting discussions and brainstorm really important things :slight_smile:
true decentralization is about opinion from hundreds, thousands of users.
the more we get – the better it’ll be

1 Like