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:
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.
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.
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 moderatorsā share. A 100-fold difference between the moderatorās share and the regular userās share is unfair.thanks guys
Is it fair to receive 1% for 3,000 and 50,000 for 50? I donāt 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, isnāt 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?
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.
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.
In my opinion, 1% share for NFT holders is considered too low. Considering the duration of these peopleās 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. thatās 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 andā¦ 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 āmoderator grantsā section feels unclear and Iād 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 Iāve mentioned before, I still believe that 1% for OG users isnāt enough and should be increased. Furthermore, there are many users who didnāt 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, Iād like to know more about the early investorsā 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 projectās growth and the communityās 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