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.