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
It is proposed that the first public GYFI governance distribution will take place no later than 31 January 2025.
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.
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]).
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.
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.
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:
The small share allocated to those who have been with the project for four years.
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:
Increase the NFT holders’ share to a minimum of 2% (with part of the additional 1% coming from the reallocation of the moderators’ share).
Reduce the moderators’ share by 10,000 tokens, with a cap of 1,000 tokens per individual.
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.