[Consultation] GYFI governance token distribution date, Founding Members and more

Background/motivation

This consultation fires the starting gun on the possible release of GYFI by the Gyroscope community.

In conjunction with [GIP-1] which passed on Dec 9, this consultation aims to finalise key remaining items around initial GYFI token distribution.

As a reminder, the total supply of GYFI is 13,700,000. 2% inflation is currently programmed to start on 20 August 2027. The token contract is deployed on Ethereum here.

Summary of proposal

1. It is proposed that the first public GYFI governance distribution will take place no later than 31 January 2025.
2. It is proposed that Founding Member NFT holders are jointly eligible to claim 1% of the total GYFI supply. For each of the 4 tiers of Founding Member NFT (Common, Rare, Epic and Legendary) different amounts of GYFI will be claimable. It is proposed that the 1% is distributed equally across the four rarity types. Founding Members will be able to benefit from the provisions of [GIP-1], meaning that they will be able to lock their GYFI to receive either 40% or 150% more.

It should be remembered that this is not the main reward channel for Founding Members. The main channel is through the automatic boosts to the SPIN earning tier. As a reminder, those with a Founding Member NFT who have also provided liquidity to the project are automatically boosted as follows:

• Participants in any of the Gyroscope stress-tests were automatically eligible to be boosted one SPIN tier
• Holders of ‘Common’ or ‘Rare’ Founding Member NFTs are eligible to be boosted one SPIN tier
• Holders of ‘Epic’ or ‘Legendary’ Founding Member NFTs are eligible to be boosted two SPIN tiers

To take an example: a ‘Common’ rarity Founding Member NFT holder who decides to LP $10,000 USD to the protocol for ~3 months, earning SPIN at the 10x rate, and participated in the stress-tests would receive approximately 50% more GYFI than someone who had only LP’d.

3. It is proposed that in total Galxe participants will be eligible to jointly claim c. 2,500 GYFI. It is proposed that these tokens are immediately liquid (though can be locked as per Options 2 and 3 in [GIP-1]).
4. It is proposed that in total 50,000 GYFI is provisioned for a moderator grants scheme where any individual grant has a maximum limit of 5,000 GYFI. The Gyroscope Foundation will decide who is eligible for grants and will share information on how to apply for one soon. Any unused part of this allocation will be returned to the Gyroscope DAO.

The Gyroscope DAO may wish to consider in future the possibility of further airdrops for active users, including Founding Members, for those who continue to actively use Gyroscope or others who meaningfully participate in Gyroscope governance and outreach. Of course if any such airdrop is considered in the future it should take into account sybil risks.

Risk assessment

Not relevant.

As a Founding Member NFT holder, I’d like to propose adjusting the token allocation for Founding Members, with particular emphasis on recognizing those who have actively participated in governance through previous votes.

• Founding Members who have participated in at least one previous vote receive a higher share within this allocation.
• Non-voting Founding Members retain a base share but at a slightly reduced proportion.

This adjustment would:

• Encourage greater participation in governance by rewarding active members.
• Strengthen the project’s democratic principles by aligning rewards with contributions to decision-making.
• Strike a balance between recognizing early support and fostering ongoing engagement.

I think that allocating only 1% of the governance token to NFT holders who were with the project through many challenges and stages and made a lot of effort to make it successful is a very small amount after 4 years.

I believe that based on the amounts, which will be distributed according to [GIP-1] these numbers seem comparable. It would not seem right to have substantially higher allocation for GFF holders compared to SPIN holders. But even then, I would consider increasing this allocation, where holders of higher Tiers, would receive a bit more.

I believe that it was relatively easy to get basic NFT, but higher Tiers like Legendary, gives higher confidence that this person is an actual person, and is part of the community. And even if these people benefited from higher boosts, maybe they don’t have capital to actually put these boosts in use, I believe this should be considered.

I’ve mentioned in [GIP-1], that I don’t agree with the amounts, and that they should be higher, but it’s true that there hasn’t been that many people participating in SPIN, compared to some other protocols unfortunately, and TVL also isn’t that high, which needs to be considered.

I propose to increase this allocation slightly (2%), and to consider higher GFF Tiers.

Thanks, I look forward to discussing this further.

hello .

1% token allocation is really unacceptable and terrible…

You should value early adopters more, especially after that complicated and difficult testnet that only a few were able to successfully pass.

I never agree with this proposal and I hope this amount increases to a reasonable level.

Also, allocating 5000 tokens to each admin is very, very unfair. This means that an admin’s token share is almost 100 times that of a regular user, or equivalent to 100 regular users. How is this justified?

Why should moderators get 50 times more tokens than regular users? We’ve all been involved in gyroscope for four years and this type of distribution is very unfair. Please use the NFT rarity as the criterion instead of this terrible difference and adopt this more fair method to appreciate the moderators’ efforts, for example, moderators get 100 more tokens than NFT holders with legendary rarity.

Allocating 1% total to the core group that started with you 4 years ago is how you launch a protocol that is DOA

Every successful project of late has leaned into larger allocation to community something like HYPE is the greatest wealth creation event in crypto in the form of an airdrop and they heavily allocated to their users and early adopters.

Mods being allocated a maximum individual allocation at 100x what founding members are allocated makes no sense either.

With spin at roughly 5-10% it makes sense to allocate at minimum 3-5% to founding members and even that total allocation to community is on the lower end of what we have seen as successful distributions

Allocating only 1% of tokens to early users who have been with the project for more than three years in any situation and in any challenge will be discouraging. Please reconsider this and, like many traditional promoters, consider 5% for your loyal users to ensure the health of the project over time. Also, reconsider the moderators’ share. A 100-fold difference between the moderator’s share and the regular user’s share is unfair.

In my opinion, one percent of the total supply for funding members is too little, they have always been with the project, also comparing the number of tokens of managers and funding members shows that this tokenomics is not fair,

After increasing the share of early adopters from 1% to 5%, the NFT rarity will also be a very suitable criterion for distributing GYFI tokens and is considered a fair method.

In my opinion, it would be better if the distributed tokens reach the full 2% allocation, and the additional 1% is distributed equally among all holders. This way, every holder would receive a base amount of approximately 50 GYFI tokens. Such an approach ensures a more balanced and fair distribution among all tiers.

As PanCake mentioned, the ratio to SPIN is fairly comparable. However, I believe the ratio should lean more heavily toward the Founding Frog NFT side—perhaps by 3–5%. In today’s crypto ecosystem, most projects that achieve successful launches tend to be more generous at the TGE.

It’s not the price we should be concerned about, but rather building a strong DAO/community with a committed, loyal, and educated voting bloc. A well-rewarded community often reciprocates by supporting the token. The price will follow.

Hello, I have a complaint and I am writing the complaints here
Why should admins and managers get so many tokens and NFT holders get so little?
We did a lot of work for the project during the testnet and stayed with the project while it was full of bugs and helped the project progress. Now only 1% goes to NFT holders?
I think it is unfair that 1% is given, we demand that this percentage be increased.

This proposal is truly illogical for two main reasons:

1. The small share allocated to those who have been with the project for four years.

2. The unusually large share designated for moderators.

Those who hold the NFTs have consistently supported the proposal and deserve a greater share. Therefore, their share should be increased to at least 2%.

As for the moderators, the allocated share is excessively high and unfair. Apart from two or three active individuals, most moderators only check in on the project occasionally. Thus, their share should be reduced.

Here is my proposed revision:

1. Increase the NFT holders’ share to a minimum of 2% (with part of the additional 1% coming from the reallocation of the moderators’ share).

2. Reduce the moderators’ share by 10,000 tokens, with a cap of 1,000 tokens per individual.

hello .

1% token allocation is really unacceptable and terrible…

You should value early adopters more, especially after that complicated and difficult testnet that only a few were able to successfully pass.

I never agree with this proposal and I hope this amount increases to a reasonable level.

Also, allocating 5000 tokens to each admin is very, very unfair. This means that an admin’s token share is almost 100 times that of a regular user, or equivalent to 100 regular users. How is this justified?

I think you know better that none of the community members agree with this . On the other hand, the huge difference between the tokens allocated to the moderators and members of DAO should be taken into consideration.

I request of team to deduct part of the moderators’ allocation and add it to the NFT holders .

My suggestion is to allocate between 3 - 5 percent of tokens to testnet users and also allocate a maximum of 1000 tokens to administrators.

If you value your early users, I hope you agree with my suggestion.

It is also important to note that currently FF’s hold 26% of governance power based on GGU what this proposal is implying is that for the entirety of the 4 years of Gyroscope FF’s have made up 1/4th of the voting power and now a proposal is being suggested to cut that power by 96%

If the belief for the last 4 years was FF’s had the ability to pass decisions with 26% of all voting weight explain how it makes any sense at the 1 yard line to drop that governance power so drastically

Seriously?!
After 4 years!
this is so unfair
I think the minimum should be 5%
This is unrespectful for the old community that support the project from the beginning.
The project that we believed on it and never gave up.
Show you’r respect to your loyal community.

NFT holders are the most loyal supporters of the project, but they are obviously not taken seriously enough.

It is too little to allocate only 1% of the governance tokens to NFT holders. This is an act of disrespecting the community and will dampen the enthusiasm of the community to participate in the project. The future development of the project will not be optimistic.

3%~5% is a suitable ratio. Paying attention to community incentives has a positive effect.

I dont agree with this proposal and i will vote against it.1% for true believers who waited 4 years. Its not serious. Something in the range of 3 to 5% would be appropriate.

The proposed allocation of 1% of GYFI to Founding Member NFT holders appears reasonable, given the SPIN tier boosts they already receive. However, I suggest considering allocations or future provisions for Councillor NFT holders as well. Those who have actively participated in governance, whether as Founding Members or Councillor NFT holders, should be prioritized, as they are more likely to contribute meaningfully to the project long-term.

Additionally, the 50,000 GYFI allocation for the moderator grants scheme seems excessive. Reducing it to 10,000 GYFI would be more appropriate.

Disclaimer: I am a Councillor NFT holder and have participated in two governance votes.

I believe 1% is too little considering the potential FDV of GYFI and the standards of crypto projects. I think GFF holders deserve more. My suggestion is:

1. Increase the allocation for GFF holders to at least 2-3 %. You can consider allocating additional tokens to active and real people: consider who LPed in SPIN (any amount), who voted for previous proposals, who stress tested, who are higher tiers (Epic and Legendary). This way you can still avoid allocating much to bots/farmers/inactive holders.
2. Decrease the allocation of Moderators. Set max 2k for each. Cut total allocation and add it to GFF holders. As a person who was always at Gyro Discord for last 4 years I can confirm that moderators were not that active as compared to other projects that I am involved.
   Hope the team considers all these input from the community. The projects that allocated fairly to the community never disappointed after TGE (like Hype, Uni, Layerzero) and projects who did not suffered (like Scroll and Zksync recently). Do not repeat such mistakes.

It is recommended to increase the NFT holder allocation ratio to 5% to recognize the contributions made by early testers to the project.

I understand the discussions around the allocation for Founding Member NFT holders and the moderator grants. However, I have the following concerns:

Under this proposal, the allocation for Founding Members would be decided before determining the allocations for Councillor NFT holders and the Associated DAO. This creates a risk of Founding Members fearing dilution and being incentivized to push for disproportionately low allocations for the other groups, which would be unfair.

Therefore, I propose that the allocations for Founding Members, Councillor NFT holders, and the Associated DAO be decided simultaneously. To my understanding, these three vaults each hold approximately 2,600 GGU in voting power. They should either be treated equally, or clear reasoning should be provided if unequal treatment is proposed.

My proposal is aimed at ensuring fairness for all participants and is not intended to seek any special advantage for Councillor NFT holders.

Allocating only 1% of tokens to early users who have been with the project for more than three years in any situation and in any challenge will be discouraging. Please reconsider this and, like many traditional promoters, consider 5% for your loyal users to ensure the health of the project over time. Also, reconsider the moderators’ share. A 100-fold difference between the moderator’s share and the regular user’s share is unfair.thanks guys

Is it fair to receive 1% for 3,000 and 50,000 for 50? I don’t think so.
Over the years, whenever you needed help testing your project, we were there for you. But now, we get literally nothing! And what happened to the stress test rewards?
I believe that 1% should be increased to 5%.
You should also consider a fair distribution of tokens between founding members and moderators.

The nft holders have been with the program for almost four years, four years of growth testing with the program, isn’t it a bit outrageous to only get 1% one percent, should increase the share of nft holders for the airstrike and then let the intervening years of testing and voting how to call it weighted.

Early users share 1%
Moderators share 0.4%
Does not make sense
Please increase the early users share to about 5% and also reduce the maximum moderator token share from 5000 to 1000 tokens in order to protect the project. What guarantee is there that the moderator will remain in the project after the token distribution?

I agree with adjusting alloc based on LP and voting activity.

First off, as a founding frogger I am grateful for whatever I get. I do however think a larger overall percentage allocation would be beneficial, as early participants who are well rewarded like to share their enthusiasm. And, those that are not, likewise share their disappointment.

1% for Founding memeber is so ridiculous，5% at least

I want to express my disagreement with the proposed token allocation. Allocating only 1% of tokens to early users and NFT holders is highly unfair. In my opinion, their share should be at least 3% to 5% of the total token supply. Additionally, the allocation for moderators seems excessive and requires reconsideration. I believe the maximum number of tokens allocated to moderators should be around 10,000 to 20,000.

Please listen to the concerns of the users, as the success of this platform depends on the satisfaction of your loyal early users.

Thank you.

In my opinion, 1% share for NFT holders is considered too low. Considering the duration of these people’s presence in the project and the impact they have on its formation and introduction, it should be at least 3%.

There is no Bot nor farmers among the GFF Holders. anyone who has the NFT already passed several Sybil challenges. that’s why there are only 3000 of them.

as a Founding NFT holder, when I saw this distribution I felt sorry for this team, if you look at the stage of this project you know the power of your users and community that participate in any test such as the stress test voting program and… I belive that the 1% is too low for NFT holders and in the other way the 50K is too high for project moderators.
here is my option:
5% for NFT founding members
10K for Moderators

I have some thoughts and questions regarding the current allocation proposal:

First, the “moderator grants” section feels unclear and I’d appreciate more details about it. Were these grants tied to specific proposals or contributions that were reviewed and approved? It seems there might be a misunderstanding here and further clarification could help address concerns.

As I’ve mentioned before, I still believe that 1% for OG users isn’t enough and should be increased. Furthermore, there are many users who didn’t hold NFTs but still contributed meaningfully. I think establishing a minimum share for every eligible user with a minimum level of activity would be a fair way to ensure broader participation is acknowledged. Additionally, I believe more active users should be rewarded; NFT holders who engaged in Spin campaigns, Snapshot voting (or delegated) should be distinguished from those who simply held their NFTs without further involvement and this can help us at least have more rewards for the more active ones, instead of the same share for everyone (although I still believe increasing the base share should remain the first priority).

Lastly, I’d like to know more about the early investors’ token share details. Transparency on this matter would help the community better understand the overall distribution.

By addressing these points, we can work toward a fairer outcome that aligns with the contributions of OGs, active users and the broader Gyroscope community.

Guys, no point to argue here, they have majority of voting rights with the admins.

In all honesty, they would not barge and probably act to adjust values a little, then force the voting, watch Terra and others have over 9-10% voting success rates and proposal goes through.

Meanwhile, majority of them are having 2k or none in GYD tokens lmao. FREE MONEY!!!

A 1% allocation for founding members seems quite unfair compared to other community allocations in Gyro and the community allocations in different projects in the same sector.
I would suggest considering more thorough criteria and metrics to measure the engagement and activities of founding members who have interacted with Gyro over the past four years and dedicating an extra proportion to active GFF holders.
Such metrics can include engagement in the first and second phases of Gyro liquidity pools as well as voting participation.
I hope to see the Gyro project’s growth and the community’s continuous engagement.

I am agree with Doraaa completely and I think 5-8% token allocation is fair for funding members. No one was here when we started Gyro and tested and it was really difficult to pass and be part of funding members. I hope the team consider this and respect early members. Community is everything.
Also, allocating 5000 tokens to each admin is very, very unfair

OMG ! are you serious ? 5000 tokens to discord modirators ? its not fair !!!
only 1% to testnet users ? after 3-4 years ? its not cool at all !

Gyro is doing a BIG mistake by assigning one percent of the total supply for funding members.
What a joke! soon you will regret it.

I can’t Believe gyro team can go wrong till this limit
this proposal in fact is for discord moderators not loyal users
max 1000 token for mods , max 5% for NFT HOLDERs
this would be a good way to appreciate long-term users and loyal ones

its so funny only 1% for nft.average 40 token for nft and 5000 token for mod.we so early on this project and allocation must be change to 5%.if you do it its so fair and we support you again.

hello .

1% token allocation is really unacceptable and terrible…

You should value early adopters more, especially after that complicated and difficult testnet that only a few were able to successfully pass.

I think this is unfair. If the share for testnet users increases from 1% to 5%, and the tokens allocated to the team are reduced from 5000 to a maximum of 1000 tokens, it would be fair.

It is recommended to increase the NFT holder allocation ratio to 5% to recognize the contributions made by early testers to the project

i same thinking better please
After increasing the share of early adopters from 1% to 5%, the NFT rarity will also be a very suitable criterion for distributing GYFI tokens and is considered a fair method.

This is very unfair. In My Opinion, The Percentage of the NFT Should 4 %OR 5 %, and 1000 token for the discord mode.

If you really want to drive real hype and benefit the community, you should definitely increase the share for early users—NFT holders—from 1% to 5%.

1% token allocation is really unacceptable and terrible…

You should value early adopters more, especially after that complicated and difficult testnet that only a few were able to successfully pass.

I never agree with this proposal and I hope this amount increases to a reasonable level.

Also, allocating 5000 tokens to each admin is very, very unfair. This means that an admin’s token share is almost 100 times that of a regular user, or equivalent to 100 regular users. How is this justified?

This not acceptable , we’ve been with gyro about 3years and now it is not good for us after long time , better to change the allocation.

I read the comments, almost everyone is against this type of distribution. I hope the project managers will respect the opinion of users and increase the share of early users

Hello team

I am writing to propose two changes to the token distribution plan to ensure fairness within the community:

Increase Testnet Users’ Allocation: The allocation for testnet users should be increased from 1% to 5%.
Reduce moderators Tokens: The allocation for moderators, specifically managers, should be reduced from 5,000 tokens to a maximum of 300 tokens.
It seems highly inequitable that testnet users, who contribute significantly, receive only 1% (equivalent to approximately 40 tokens), while Discord moderators are allocated over 100 times more.

To achieve this balance, I suggest redistributing a portion of the moderators tokens and reallocating unused reserves to testnet users. Additionally, introducing performance-based rewards for moderators could justify token distribution while ensuring fairness.

Adjusting these allocations will reflect a more balanced and fair distribution and better reward the contributions of the broader community.

Thank you for considering this proposal. I look forward to your response.

Best regards

Seriously? cant handle this! we, the real users are the early members of Gyro who minted NFTs way before anyone else. Please increase the allocation for NFT holders. 40 token is NOTHING!

I strongly believe that it is unfair allocation, Founding Member NFT holders are early supporter of The gyro projects and have supported the project since it started and participated in different phase of testnet and other campaigns, I think at least 5% is better, I hope this subject will be heard

only 1% of the governance token to NFT holders who were with the project through many challenges and stages and made a lot of effort to make it successful is a very small amount after 4 years. thanks for attention

Because gyroscope have a lot of members and user’s in discord and X approximately 2 million user and it’s so hard for admins to handle this huge members please increase the allocation of moderators to 5 m token😆
Also those who have NFT set 0.01 allocation for them because they bought those NFT for 0.001 eth 3 years ago

It is recommended to increase the NFT holder allocation ratio to 5% to recognize the contributions made by early testers to the project

As a Founding NFT holder, I’m extremely disappointed with the current distribution plan. Given the project’s current stage and the active participation of our community and users in various tests and programs, including the stress test voting program, allocating a mere 1% to NFT holders is deeply inadequate. In contrast, allocating 50,000 units to project moderators is disproportionately high. I propose the following as a more equitable distribution: 5% for Founding NFT members and 10,000 units for moderators. I urge you to seriously reconsider this distribution.

like everyone else above, I highly disagree with the proposal. the amount of tokens allocated to NFT holders and Mods is extremely unfair.
I agree with the suggestion of allocating 5% of the tokens to NFT holders and reducing the Mods’ share to a maximum of 1000 tokens.

In my opinion, allocating 5% of tokens to OG holders could be done as follows:

• 2% equally among all NFT holders
• 1% for NFT holders based on NFT rarity
• 1% for those NFT holders who also participated in the Stress Test
• 1% for NFT holders who participated in the Spin campaign (distributed based on their rank)

Dear Gyro Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the recent governance proposal on the distribution of GYFI tokens, as outlined in the forum thread. While I appreciate the team’s efforts in structuring a fair tokenomics model, I believe the current allocation is highly inequitable, especially concerning the testnet users (NFT holders) and Discord moderators.

Testnet User Allocation:
The proposed allocation of 1% of the total supply (equivalent to 137,000 tokens) for all NFT holders is disproportionately low, considering the contributions and engagement of the testnet community. These users actively tested, provided feedback, and helped refine the project during its early stages. I strongly urge the team to increase this allocation to 5% of the total supply to better reflect their role in the project’s development.

Discord Moderator Rewards:
The proposal to allocate 5,000 tokens per Discord moderator is excessive and creates a stark imbalance compared to the rewards for testnet users. While moderators play an important role in community management, the proposed amount significantly outweighs their contributions. I recommend revising this allocation to a maximum of 1,000 tokens per moderator, ensuring a more balanced and fair distribution.

This discrepancy undermines the principles of fairness and equity that are critical to the success and long-term trust in the Gyro ecosystem. I encourage the team to consider these adjustments to maintain community support and confidence in the project’s governance process.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to seeing a revised proposal that reflects the values and efforts of all contributors to the Gyro community.

Best regards,

Your next move will show whether you truly care about the community or not.

It’ll also reveal whether you’re prioritizing the interests of a select few or the entire Gyro community.

If you want to drive real hype and benefit the community, you should definitely increase the share for early users—NFT holders—from 1% to 5%.

If you’re thinking about the project’s future, make sure the distribution is fair and balanced for everyone.

On top of that, we’ve seen recent projects make some strange decisions—like the proposal you presented—that ended up driving users away. Please don’t make the same mistakes. Instead, make choices that create a positive buzz on social media when tokens are distributed. That way, we can attract a flood of new people to the project and set ourselves up for better growth and success in the future.

with respect

1: Please do not justify with spin rates
Community members have been with the project for four years and have participated in various tests. It’s unfair to justify the current distribution by stating that members have already received rewards through SPIN boosts(what rewards). Many members don’t have significant capital.
For instance, with $1000 capital, there wasn’t much difference between a regular person and a community member who held even a good NFT and participated in stress tests.
given that $1000 is a significant amount for most of us. It’s inaccurate to say that the potential rewards and incentives were provided for funding members with spin boosts. if the multiplier was like 3X or more it would have been more equitable, but it wasn’t.

2: moderators shares
while moderators undeniably played a crucial role in community growth and development and deserve more for their efforts, a maximum 100x higher reward seems excessive and unfair. A five-fold of someone who has legendary NFT would be more reasonable I think.
it is even more unfair if we compare the maximum reward for mods with spins => approximately it’s like putting $1000 with boosts for " 18 years " .

3: do not ignore other involvements in the project
as I described in spin rates multiplier isn’t enough for these things, stress test participants and voting participants should be considered in this reward as well. despite the spin rates they got.

conclusion
"I believe the token distribution method, as outlined, is quite unfair and insulting to the community.
mods share 5 fold than who has legendary NFT, would be OK.
and anything less than 5% is insulting to the community.

*please hear the community’s concerns *
thanks

Dear Gyro Team and Community,

I would like to express my strong opposition to the current reward allocation proposal regarding the distribution of tokens for NFT holders (testnet users) and Discord managers.

According to the current proposal:
1. Only 1% of the total supply (13.7 million tokens) is allocated to NFT holders, amounting to just 137,000 tokens. Given the large number of NFT holders, this results in an unfairly low share (approximately 40 tokens per person, depending on the holders’ count).
2. In contrast, 5,000 tokens are allocated to each Discord manager, which is disproportionately higher and inconsistent with the contributions of the community members.

This allocation does not fairly reflect the value provided by testnet users, who actively participated, tested, and supported the project during its critical early phases. Rewarding testnet participants with only 1%, while granting over 100 times that amount to individual Discord managers, is inequitable and disappointing.

We propose the following changes to ensure fairness:
• Increase the testnet users’ share from 1% to 5% of the total supply.
• Reduce the allocation for each Discord manager from 5,000 tokens to a maximum of 1,000 tokens.

These adjustments would better reflect the contributions of the broader community, encourage continued support for the project, and address the current imbalance in token distribution.

I urge the team to reconsider this proposal and the community to support this call for fairness. Let’s work together to ensure that all contributors receive a just and reasonable reward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Greetings and regards to the gyro team

4 years ago, when the GYRO testnet started, a small number of users and only those who were really interested in the project participated in the very complex and difficult testnet of the project. These people are all early adopters and usually any project gives high importance to early adopters.

We must admit that these people made a significant contribution to the team in developing Jairo because they had a special love and interest in this project. Now it is time for the Jairo team to show how important this early community is to them.

I believe that the minimum reward for testnet members after all this time should be acceptable and at the level of 5%. The 1% proposed in this proposal is insulting and in my opinion is equivalent to considering any reward. In addition, the reward for administrators should be limited to 1000 tokens.

I am sure that with this method all community members will be happy and satisfied and it is completely fair. THANK U .

[quote=“Doraaa1010, post:7, topic:12696, full:true”]
hello .

1% token allocation is really unacceptable and terrible…

You should value early adopters more, especially after that complicated and difficult testnet that only a few were able to successfully pass.

I never agree with this proposal and I hope this amount increases to a reasonable level.

Also, allocating 5000 tokens to each admin is very, very unfair. This means that an admin’s token share is almost 100 times that of a regular user, or equivalent to 100 regular users. How is this justified?

I think Allocating 1% of the total GYFI supply for Founding Member NFT holders who have been with the project for more than 4 years and made a lot of work it is very low and must increase to 5%. and in my opinion active users should be rewarded more depend on their activity.

1% is very low with after 4 years minimum 5% is fair

We Testnet users all express our protest and opposition to the proposed airdrop distribution proposal to Testnet users.

After a lot of effort and difficulty and going through the difficult steps of the net test, we expect a reasonable reward to be given to the members. I am sure that early community satisfaction will have a direct impact on a successful and perfect project launch.

I hope that the respected members of GYRO will hear the voice of the community and it is surprising that a very large amount of money has been reserved for the administrators. Certainly, no one denies the hard work and role of managers, but there should be an acceptable balance between the rewards given to members and the rewards of managers. Is 100 times an early adopter reasonable? A maximum of 25 times the bonus of early users is acceptable.

It is suggested that the share of the directors is a maximum of 1000 tokens and the share of the owners of NFT Frog is set at 5%.

with respect

I fully support Azoo’s proposal regarding the token allocation. Reducing the Mods’ share to a maximum of 1000 tokens and allocating 5% of the tokens to NFT holders is a fair and balanced approach. The suggested distribution method, which takes into account NFT rarity, participation in the Stress Test, and the Spin campaign, ensures that active community members are properly rewarded. This approach promotes fairness and incentivizes greater engagement from NFT holders.

Dear Gyroscope Project Team

I am very happy that your project will finally launch and I hope it will have a very successful launch.

Regarding the proposed proposal, I disagree with the proposed percentage. The hard work of the testnet users, and that too after 4 years, deserves an acceptable reward. My suggestion is to allocate 5%.

Also, I have heard that the share of the managers is a significant amount. Please act fairly and a maximum of 1000 tokens is acceptable for the managers. Reducing the share of the early users and adding it to the managers is not justified and will cause dissatisfaction in the community.

Rest assured that with the support of the community, especially the early users, the project will be strong.

I don’t think that many communities have 1% share it can’t be decentralized

1% token allocation is really unacceptable and terrible…

You should value early adopters more, especially after that complicated and difficult testnet that only a few were able to successfully pass.

The rewards for moderators are too much by any stretch of the imagination.

I believe that allocating only one percent of the tokens to the community is unfair to the real users who have been with the project for a long time, from the start of the testnet until now, and have helped to resolve all the project’s issues. The share of real cryptocurrency users should be adjusted in proportion to the number of Discord members. I am against this proposal.

I personally, did not have a penny in my wallet but i contributed in any other way that i could, from the beginning until now.
I think there should be more tokens to be given to the founding members and those who were active in the forum and other medias. The Gyro’s team should know that it was the founding fathers who made America, and it was their photo that marked on the US dollar, not the one whom invest the most money in the America!!!

1% of the governance token to NFT holders who were with the project through many challenges and stages and made a lot of effort to make it successful is a very unfair

With these unfair decisions, this project will be doomed to failure. Never underestimate the power of the community.

In my opinion, it is unfair to allocate only 1% of the rewards to the members of the Gyroscope community, who have been actively contributing to your project for several years.
Please remember that the community is one of the most important pillars of any network or platform, and if this group is satisfied with the team’s performance, the benefits to the project and the team will be guaranteed.

Let me provide some feedback.

The proposal stated that the allocation to the moderator grants scheme is a budget item. If that’s the case, it would not be appropriate for governance to determine the allocation to the moderator grants scheme. It should be funded from The Gyroscope Foundation’s budget.
This is because most governance participants do not have the background to understand and decide on the amount of budget and expected timeframe for the moderator grants scheme.

100%
I think that allocating only 1% of the governance token to NFT holders who were with the project through many challenges and stages and made a lot of effort to make it successful is a very small amount after 4 years.

We strongly believe the current token distribution is unfair and needs to be revised. Testnet users, who are crucial to the project, are only receiving 1% (roughly 40 tokens), while administrators are receiving over 100 times that amount (5000 tokens). To ensure fairness and align with the principles we started with, we propose increasing the testnet user allocation to 5% and reducing the administrator allocation to a maximum of 1000 tokens

average allocation for genesis nfts % in crypto is 7% to 15% …The Gyro protocol can even raise it because OG users have passed some of the hardest challenges in DeFi and engaged over 3 years

Hello, everyone, after passing the tests and accompanying all the way, four years later, nft, as a founding member, only got 1% of the allocation, which is simply unacceptable. I personally strongly protest! It is recommended that the allocation be increased to 3-5 per cent. This is not only a reasonable return to early members, but also the greatest incentive for follow-up project support! Then there is the suggestion to consider rewarding early members who actively participate in voting and governance!

Update on the GYFI token launch

The decentralized governance of Gyroscope has decided to release GYFI to the early community by the end of January. The FTL Labs team has been working extensively to live up to the community’s expectations. The distribution itself is very close; however, it seems clear that a 1 week postponement would greatly increase the quality and security of the launch as several processes are still being finalized.

Everything remains very close to schedule, and we share the excitement of everyone in the community. The launch is just around the corner now.

Separately, Gyroscope’s stats are looking exceptionally impressive with TVL at ATHs and pools that are more efficient than ever, demonstrating a revenue potential that has been quickly increasing.

Update #2 on the GYFI token launch

The FTL Labs team is still working extensively to live up to the launch expectations. While most elements are in place, the launch has several moving pieces that the team is still actively working to finalize.

We will give an update on a precise timeline soon, but it will be squarely in February. It is in the final stretch.