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

Proposals
16

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

2 Likes
17

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?

18

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
19

@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

2 Likes
20

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:

21

Thank your for detailed answer.

Firstly, i want to be clear: I’m not against fair distribution and agree that in current state it’s kinda messed up.

Secondly, no i dont propose to release all tokens at once. It’s easy road to grave ofc.

Thirdly, nope, testers doesn’t “holding 90%+ of tokens”. It’s 90% of current circ supply which messed up. Totally agree.
(As you know some of Alphas already sell their bags so i think it’s slightly less)

I suggest to think:

  1. About better vesting period. That part of your prop is completly ok as i said.

  2. About more incentives for LPs + community. We have a plenty interesting things like yVaults, pools in different projects, etc.
    Not to mention about PowerPool own pools, Power Index, etc.

This two points can and should correlate with each other. For rough example, when community part>beta/gamma part, then we can release this tokens (with vesting period) or something.

Also ofc we should discuss one more time about needed quantity of CVP to making props once we will in mainnet.

22

Btw thanks for the tabs. I’m not quite agree with you at some points, but can say - it’s really hard work and it’s really cool to see on this forum. :relieved:

Part with aggregated data is marvelous.

2 Likes
23

Thanks @Zero

I am absolutely happy to further discuss the #2 and include it into this proposal before launching it!

I have already proposed 3x increase of LP rewards till the YE2021, but yeah we can discuss additional incentives.

The reason I didn’t propose them - not to increase the circ supply to at least try to create a buying pressure

So a possible solution here is raise the LM rewards may be even 5x from 3x level but strictly vest this additional tokens for ~6 months

1 Like
24

Yeah, thanks, someone should have this done, so everyone would be aware of the full picture:)

Actually this aggregation took most of the time, so this is another reason I didnt think over step-2/step-3 ways of LM rewards mechanics

25

This has probably been my biggest worry for the project since the beginning, and I was wondering if it’d actually be wrong to actually decrease the rewards for the testers, as I couldn’t think of any other solutions myself. Now, seeing this table completely drawn up makes things even worse (visually).

Let’s just line up the facts so far:

  1. a bunch of Alpha testers have already sold (and we were in a bullish month, so now imagine the next month if things don’t go as well)

  2. Early LP’s were the ones that risked the most, and lost the most, but their rewards haven’t been compensated up to par. I think we all agree with that as demonstrated on PIP1

Although I agree that it wouldn’t be fair to decrease beta/gamma’s allocation after the deal was struck, the truth is we just can’t be sure most of them won’t be dumping after the vesting period.

I have to agree with @Zero that once betas/gammas tokens are unlocked, they will just gang up and vote to revert this proposal. Hence I’d like to get to my first proposal update: Once we vote for this new structure/vesting period, it should be set in stone, REGARDLESS.

From the response so far my take is that everyone agrees the token distribution is a disaster and that even beta/gammas are OK to accept a longer vesting period. Like I said above, I don’t think the proposal is aggressive enough in the distribution schedule. The current proposal assumes a total vesting period of 9 months. Let’s be honest guys, being awarded $90K usd (@ today’s price) it’s quiet generous, we can and should increase the vesting period, up to 18-24 months. That’d be a distribution of 4-5.5% tokens each month. I would be OK not decreasing tester rewards but increasing the vesting period even further, up to 30-36 months.

What we have is a textbook case of prisoner’s dilemma, and if we stick together longer, we win, it’s that simple.

Finally, I’d like to thank @Sergey, as he’s definitely been spending a lot of precious hours on this (besides LPing). I’d like to also get @anildelphi 's input on this, I’m SURE this is something they have thought about.

26

I am a gamma tester. It is understandable to delay the token distribution schedule. However, it is sad for a gamma tester to make a difference even if the number of beta and gamma is reduced. It should have been the same right originally. Gamma testers are now testing with their asset tokens. The token is plummeting. Shouldn’t gamma be adjusted at least with 35,000 sheets like beta in this proposal?

27

I think @Sergey’s proposal is good, but I don’t know whether it’s the best alternative long term.

I would like to propose the following:

  1. Having a vote to agree that some of the Beta and Gamma testers’ rewards be distributed to early LPs - a very simple proposal without any numbers, just to agree on the fact that this must be done.

  2. With more time, discussion and debate, craft a proposal on how those rewards should be redistributed to early LPs. The proposal that comes out of this exercise should be comprehensive and include all sensitive/important details.

I would even ask the guys at Delphi to help us think this through. They have also stated that the initial distribution wasn’t good - so I think they may be interested in helping with this.

28

Thanks!

As I mentioned above, I would breakdown the task as follows

  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)

I think that the only way to simultaneously reward the Early LPs and decrease/streamline the circ supply is to decrease the reward for beta/gammas and relatively slightly increase the reward for early LPs (+1 mn CVPs)

but I agree that we should extend the lock ups more aggressively. I would suggest 18 months linear unlock for both the testers and the early LPs

1 Like
29

I think in this case both beta and gammas should be 30k.

But it is non-transparent.

We know nothing on what beta and gamma are doing.

Hope the team will also comment what they think would be fair

30

Thanks!

@JonathanErlich I am afraid that if we postpone this too much, people will just not buy CVP

@anildelphi Delphi guys, you have all the lay out required - please enter the discussion

31

Lets summarize what we have to add atm (my opinion):

  1. Extend the lock ups for beta/gamma and implement same lock ups for CVP redistributed to Early LPs
  2. Implement additional LM rewards to the token distribution schedule [to be provided by the team]
  3. Consider additional LM reward for general miners with vesting/lockup to additionally dillute the share of testers in the circ supply
  4. Discuss with the team how we can put vesting on the remaining Alpha’s allocations
  5. Polish and finalize the exact numbers for re-distribution/vestings
2 Likes
32
  1. Maybe not the same (testers locks can be harder due no impermanent loss)

And yep, like it.

33

Appreciate the tag. We’re actually working through this today and hope to have something posted here by EOD tomorrow.

3 Likes
34

I agree.

That’s why I propose voting for point 1 asap.

1 being: Having a vote to agree that some of the Beta and Gamma testers’ rewards be distributed to early LPs - a very simple proposal without any numbers, just to agree on the fact that this must be done.

This proposal passing would imply delaying sending the rewards to Beta and Gamma until a vote on how to redistribute them is done - even if mainnet launches.

It would give us the time we need to think this through. I’m not talking about months here, but maybe 1-2 weeks.

35

Best thing is stop adding more big bags of tokens in the market. Hope team will delay this process

1 Like