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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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%.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
.
