Proposal 4: Significant changes to the current token release schedule and distribution

Summary :

The current tokens release schedule and distribution scheme look just scary: share of testers in circ supply is 93-96% till YE2021. I am not against the testers, but think how the market will look at the project where 96% of circ supply were received buy early adopters for free.
We need to urgently and radically adjust it not to bury the Project!

Abstract :
These are quite painful measures, and I am happy to discuss them further, but we need to make strong-willed steps!

  1. Decrease testers allocation size from 15 mn CVP to 11 mn CVP (by cutting beta/gamma’s allocation by 4 mn (40%))
  2. From this 4 mn CVPs - re-distribute 2.2 mn and just not release 1.8 mn (to decrease circ supply)
  3. From 2.2 mn:
    a. 1 mn (10% of "old beta/gamma’s allocation or 17% of adjusted beta/gamma’s allocation) goes to Early LP
    b. 1.2 mn goes to the miners till the YE2021 (via 3x increase of the miners reward)
  4. Adjusted vesting for beta/gamma - 9 months with 3% monthly release for 3 months after mainnet
  5. The same vesting to be applied for 1 mn CVPs (see 3.a)

Motivation :
Please see the detailed breakdown and chart of the current token release schedule (Page 1) - it is better than all possible explanations.

  1. Current token release schedule and vestings are catastrophe:
    a. despite the circ supply is distributed among fairly large # of stakeholders, an overwhelming portion of CVP is to be distributed to the testers:
  • 93% in Oct-2020
  • 96% in Mar-2021 (peak)
  • 94% in Dec-2021
    b. Early LP get less than 10% of what each group of testers receives and less than 3% of total testers allocation in total, but need to take into account that it is likely that a large portion of early LPs are Alpha testers
  1. The problem is that ~300 counterparties holding 90%+ of circ supply received the tokens for free

Specification :

Please see the detailed breakdown and chart of the propose changes in token release schedule (Page 2)

-> decreased testers share of circ supply
- minus 3% in Oct-2020 (90% vs 93%)
- minus 13% in Mar-2021 (peak) (83% vs 96%)
- minus 27% in Dec-2021 (77% vs 94%)

-> more streamlined and smooth release schedule w/o such a sharp leaps after mainnet

-> decreased circ supply (14 mn vs 16 mn by YE2021)

-> incentives to new buyers to join via increased mining rewards

Guys I spent most of time preparing the google table to allow you to see the whole picture in the best possible way. Here are just quick snapshots.
Please go check the google tables and charts.

Please note, we should implement the changes ASAP, before the mainnet launch, otherwise the Project will appear on the market with current scary token metrics and I am afraid the result can be dramatic.


This is definitely needed and would even vote on more drastic cuts considering the free tokens and leverage they’ll have on the project.


I’m still questioning myself why did I put money into this project, if 90% of supply goes for free.
I think more serious investors and project supporters will also think about this.


Who is saying that gamma testers are free coins? My highest position is cvp/eth, which provides 7.8% of the liquidity of the total liquidity pool at 50:50. So far, I have lost nearly 8w usdt and my assets have shrunk seriously. By the time of this gamma test, I don’t know what other people have done. I have provided the project party with huge liquidity and got the quota only after huge losses.

I would like to ask which of your alpha tests is greater than mine. Your coins should be returned instead of deducting our gamma coins.

1 Like

I will support this proposal. I’m a betatester, but agree that token release schedule is a disaster and It’ll drop the price significantly. I do not believe that even 10% of beta/gamma will hold their bags.


Price will dump anyway will they sell or not becouse they COULD sell
we need to vote this proposal asap

1 Like

I’m in, this is really great proposal!Thanks Sergey

1 Like

Please advise what parameters would you change?

I can quickly implement and put it to confirm the final structure

1 Like

96% mate.
I was pretty shocked as well putting all the numbers together

As i understand 10 % unlocked to testers with mn launch. Its huge. Can we make vesting for this too. Any new tokens in market are harmful now

So you are rather early LP than gamma.

Please don’t take this personally. But this is the fact that according to the current schedule 15 mn tokens (almost the total circ supply Are to be distributed as a reward)
And I am not sure this is a better mechanics than taking VCs in early rounds

Yes, sure!
It would be great To approach the remaining alphas and negotiate vesting/allocation decrease with them. I put it into the proposal as well. But need to make sure with the team.

Instead of unlocking 10% on main net I am proposing to unlock 3.3%
and 3.3% the next month and the month after the next month - so, stretch 10% for 3 months

1 Like

Im asking because In file i see this.

Beta and Gamma distribution schedule
1 month 10%
2 month 0
3 month 0
4 month 30%
5 month 30%
6 month 30%

Anyway i prefer no instant unloks)

Hey, this is what we have NOW.

Please go to the Page 2 (switch spreadsheet in the bottom of google table and you ll see what is PROPOSED


Hello there. I can understand why this proposal is a thing.
First of all, want to remind that im a beta tester. So you can say that im not so competent about this kind of things. It’s ok, but i assume that i can get more if PowerPool will growth big and healthy. :slight_smile:

Let’s do quick math:

  1. Alpha - 5 mln CVP no vesting. Already released.

  2. Beta and Gamma - 10 mln CVP. Vesting 10% (1 mln CVP) at mainnet + vesting.

  3. Farmed atm (but it’s not necessary that LP still holding CVP) - 334154 CVP according to current Circulating Supply.

If prop passes:

  1. Alpha - 5 mln CVP no vesting. Already released.

  2. Beta/Gamma - 6 mln CVP, 9 month vesting

  3. LPs (and i should repeat - i dont think LPs will hard holding and particapate in governence) - 2,2 mln + 334k+.

So basically i assume this prop more for punish testers (for what?) than make PowerPool healthier, beacuse in fact nothing really changes in the governence power (betas and gammas in nearest future will get opportunity to vote with locked tokens).

As you can see in one of the earliest articles, mainnet liqudity mining is 80 mln out of 100 mln in total supply.

So maybe we should do somthing with fair distribution and not punishment?

LPs are holding CVp . That is undoubted.
there no punishment just vesting which is absolutely normal practice
We have to save the situation. Look at price chart: no difference with any kimchi\food token. Project shouldnt associating with it

1 Like

@Zero I have never had a goal to punish the testers. The only goal I have is to align the current token distribution schedule so that

  1. Not to offend the testers too much
  2. Give more benefits to early LPs (but again reasonably, not like 10 mn CVPs to Early LPs because I am an easly LP myself)
  3. Decrease the circ supply
  4. Create buying pressure via incentivizing new users to by CVP (via bossted general LM program)

This quite tough task, right?

In the worst case - we finally have a properly aggregated token distribution schedule with tables and charts available to the community

Though I believe that current token distribution is a management team’s mistake. It doesnt matter what is price of CVP, the fact is that the circ supply is almost totally in hands of testers. And the tokens were distributed to the testers for free.
I believe it is even worse than a Project has 2-3 private sales round - VCs at least paid something for their tokens.

I dont understand your arguments for “if the prop passes”

  1. Alphas - yes its a guge problem. And this is the team’s mistake. But what can we do about it now?
    I am suggesting to try to vest the avalable alpha tokens in mining to additionally decrease the circ supply.
  2. and 3. - yes at least LPs will have more tokens. So when someone from the market will see the token distribution structure it will look more helthy for hem/her, so more chances a new investor will purchase CVPs, is this a bad thng?

Please offer something better - would be happy to consider.
But, please dont use the word “punishment” to describe a more adequate token distribution structure.

Yes if the testers will vote to continue holding 90%+ of tokens - everyone else will just leave and this is it. the testers will have 50k CVP each at 0 price.
On the other hand if you just increase supply for the LP - the token price will likely drop due to a selling pressure

" As you can see in one of the earliest articles, mainnet liqudity mining is 80 mln out of 100 mln in total supply."
So you suggest 65 mn tokens on mainnet or what?:slight_smile: this will bury the project at once.

This is an old article and the token distribution schedule is described in a very untransparent way there.

To finalize, again, I am pretty much sure that only a combination of 4 measures described above will help the project to perform


Vesting is completly ok solution. Nothing wrong about that.
Because of opportunity to vote with locked tokens and tokens in pools - im strongly agree.

Big plus and yes, i should mention it in my previous message. :smile: