Proposal 5: Do not distribute 10% of beta testers allocations on the mainnet launch

Summary :

We need to postpone the distribution of first 10% (0.5 mn) CVP tranche to beta testers on the mainnet launch date

Abstract :

According to the planned CVP distribution schedule right on the mainnet launch date 10% of CVP attributable to beta testers should be unlocked.
If we postpone this distribution ew will be able to

  1. avoid additional selling pressure on CVP
  2. have enough time to finalize the Proposal 4 (and propose a much more adequate CVP release/distribution schedule)

Motivation :

In case 0.5 mn CVP will be unlocked and distributed:

  1. there is a high risk of a massive sell off -> price dump-> users just run away from CVP -> liquidity drops - > project is dies
  2. The tokenomics will be screwed up and we will have no chance to implement a more reasonable token release schedule anymore

Specification :

If we accept this proposal 5, we will have enough time to finalize all the schemes and numbers for an updated CVP release/distribution schedule which will very likely help to significantly improve

  1. Token price performance
  2. Power Pool perception from current and potential investors side

and continue to work on the great things we are planning to implement

Special thanks to @scott G for sponsorship and to @Doge and @JonathanErlich for the idea of the two-step structure of the Proposal 4


great job on collaborating on the proposal 4 and coming up with this solution :+1:t2:


This is some nonsense and tyrannical way of building a community. As a gamma tester who was really keen on seeing this project, i am about to see half of my tokens go to LPs who are mostly whales that happened to park their tokens and then the rest vested forever

All of this proposals happening while gamma/beta testers can barely vote. Some real strong politicking going on in the governance chain…


I’m for this proposal.

I think this would give us the time to come up with a more thorough rewards distribution proposal.

1 Like

Hey, I am not a whale unfortunately

And I lost money.

And don’t want to lose more money.

And want the project not to die as the start was great, only token distribution is a problem.

Sorry mate but this was not my idea, to put the distribution before the project started in such a way the token price dropped that much and no rational investor would buy from the market.

We need the measures and as you can see - what is proposed in proposal 4 is not aggressive as pretty many people think


Most of Lps start market making when price was 15-10 an now they not whales even if they was few weeks ago)
actually most bought at 5-15 and now got rekt
Nothing to worry about if u not going to dump asap

We have to put to a vote on this before main-net, ASAP

1 Like

the guys with 10k+ CVP balances are on it:)

In all honesty Sergey, those who hold vesting tokens have also lost as much money as you - and they dont even have the ability to sell it. You are over-acting out of emotions here and the lack of interest from people whocan really move the needle will end up hurting you more than you think it will…but do as you please

1 Like

It’s more acceptable to testers to extend the lock period rather than reduce beta gamma rewards, and testers will continue to use great influence to spread CVP.

What is great influence here? For example, there are almost no activity on this forum.
If not DelphiDigital - no one would know about this project. And you, testers, wouldn’t have anything to test.

1 Like

Can you share with us where you used your influence to spread awareness for PowerPool?

1 Like

Good idea. With prolonged vesting there is more incentive for all testers to do their best in helping and promoting PowerPool. Maybe the right option is to release first batch of tokens when market and especially defi index turns green again.

  1. No emotions - please see my proposals 2,4 and 5 - only facts. (well 5 is less accurate, but was done in a very much hurry)
  2. No, testers didnt lost money - they lost part of money which were given them without their capital being under risk - completely diff things
  3. Well, maybe we need more transparency on how exactly the testers are “moving the needle” . I am not a tester but I provide suggestions on Power Index product development and sit tight with my liquiditiy position, I was the first to aggregate the token schedule and make it transparent - I consider this is quite an input. And I offered my help from the very beginning for free.

Anyway, I was saying all the time - I have no problems with testers. I have the problem with the tokenomecs which can kill the project


I’m FOR this. We are all aware we need time to tweak the tokenomics, so let’s try to fix this once and for all.

If beta/gammas are actually in this for the long term, I don’t think they’d mind, it’s for the common good.

  1. I do like some of your other proposals and have agreed to them.
  2. They are not different. Time value of money. A lot of them are to do things over time which costs capital and it wont happen if the price of the token is underwater and especially not if you are going to go fully communist saying lets slash their tokens.
  3. I am all in for transparency and have been consistently active here reaching out to people to see how I can help.I appreciate you mate and i see where you are coming from but lets not mix emotions and strategic moves here.

I have no qualms with longer vesting. I dont think any tester wants their token exactly at main net but slashing it into half to reward some LP whales is nonsensical. Feel free to make curve/ uniswap chart part 2.

Even if most of lps are whales (actually it is not true) they deserve to get some compensation for market making token which falls -70%. Because lps not responsible for that

  1. thanks
  2. different:
  • you put efforts and -> gain CVP
  • LPs put efforts -> to earn capital -> put this capital at risk
  1. yeah, thanks.
    I rather mean that the team should highlight in more details what the testers are doing. Because now it is mostly very general explanations like “marketing, development etc” - what is it?:slight_smile:

And re the “emotions” - please lets just keep this aside. I am not on emotions - please see my proposals. even in the comments I use numbers and facts.

I dont care too much of loosing my capital invested in CVP, what I am really care about is that the idea which I like a lot+this new Index idea (I anticipated the team will come up with)+ great execution on technical side - all will be burried because of a mistake in tokenomics design

Again, mate, I was saying from the beginning - I am not a communist and I hate populism.
I hate the idea of slashing the testers allocation and would be happy to consider UNI style movement!
But we dont have a room for this - we cant increase the circ supply 2x more after the price dropped 70%+
what will be the circ supply? 20-30 mn? what will be the token price than? I doubt that even $5…

1 Like

Again, you are being blinded by the price and asking to slash holdings of people that are aligned in terms of the project. If you want to reduce supply - increase vesting, not cut their holdings. I say this as someone with a decade of experience in venture capital. Increasing vesting will align stakeholders towars what you need. Cutting their supply will have them mad at CVP even before this baby has legs to walk

Its 1.8 already
If we won’t do anything price will be 0.05 not 5)