SLURP-3 | SDL Community Airdrop

SLURPs
1

Abstract

As described in the 2022-12-16 LPL Migration Update article, we propose an additional SDL airdrop to specific subsets of the SDL community.

Rationale

This proposal was drafted after substantial feedback from the community, and is intended to enhance parity between the community’s voting power when compared to the rest of voting actors within the protocol.

Specification

Distribution

Note: all described tranches below would exclude node operators and Chainlink Labs.

LPL Community

Who:

Previous LPL Holders based on the 2022-11-25 snapshot.

How much:
4,779,332 SDL tokens distributed pro-rata, based on the amount of the wallet’s held LPL and staked LPL at the time of the November 25th snapshot.

LPL + SDL Community

Who:

Previous LPL Holders (excluding LinkPool) based on the 2022-11-25 snapshot who also retained greater than 50% of their original SDL allocation as of 2022-12-16, the time of the publishing of our LPL Migration Update article. The SDL allocation is defined as SDL held, staked, and provided as liquidity to the SushiSwap SDL/LINK Liquidity Pool.

How much:

4,779,332 SDL tokens distributed pro-rata based on the amount of a wallet’s SDL held, staked, and provided as liquidity to the SushiSwap SDL/LINK Liquidity Pool at the time of the December 16th snapshot.

SDL Community

Who:

SDL holders, stakers, and individuals who provided SDL as liquidity to the SushiSwap SDL/LINK liquidity pool as of the December 16th snapshot.

How Much:

4,779,332 SDL tokens distributed pro-rata based on the amount of a wallet’s SDL held, staked, and provided as liquidity to the SushiSwap SDL/LINK Liquidity Pool at the time of the December 16th snapshot.

Unmigrated LPL Holders

Who:

LPL holders and stakers as of the November 25th snapshot who retained 100% of this amount of LPL through the December 16th snapshot but had not yet migrated their LPL tokens to SDL, and have migrated their LPL to SDL by 2023/04/03 (April 3rd, 2023) by 12:00 PM ET and retained at least 50% of that SDL amount as of the April 3rd snapshot.

How Much:

These individuals would be considered as eligible for each tranche on a pro-rata basis, based on the amount of LPL staked and held as of the December 16th snapshot.

Minting Mechanics

  • Perform an SDL, stSDL, and SDL/LINK snapshot using the datetime stamp of the publication of this article, for the purpose of identifying eligible wallets per the foregoing eligibility criteria

  • Perform an SDL, stSDL, and SDL/LINK snapshot using the datetime of 2023/04/03 (April 3rd, 2023) 12:00 PM ET, for the purpose of identifying eligible wallets for the Unmigrated LPL Holders portion of the airdrop

  • LinkPool to burn 9,339,796 SDL tokens, reducing allocation from 34,339,796 to 25,000,000

  • DAO Multisig to mint 14,339,796 SDL tokens with a 180 day claim period

  • Eligible wallets can claim corresponding SDL airdrop

  • After the claim period, the DAO Multi-sig withdraws and burns unclaimed tokens

Voting

After discussion on talk.stake.link, this SLURP will be formally proposed to the governing Council for voting.

Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.

1 Like
2

As stated somewhat in the text above, the way in which deprecation of the LPL revenue model was handled caused an enormous rift between the Linkpool community and the company/project.

The effects of these actions are still felt on many fronts. In the wallets of those that supported Linkpool from as far back as the times of LP shares, in the community reponse to any communication Stake.link produces, Linkpool’s and SDL’s social channels and in the many Telegrams and group chats that formed surrounding these entities and events. This went beyond just financial impact for many of us, and it’s good to see some acknowledgement of these impacts via the earlier blog post, and now this proposal.

Although this proposal won’t repair the damage done to LPL holders, it is definitly a step in the right direction and should help in improving sentiment.

I will vote for on this proposal, when it comes up for vote.

5 Likes
3

I am “for” this proposal as well. I thought the greater community’s reaction to the events of Dec 2022 was a bit extreme. This is experimental fin-tech, even by the standards of the broader digital assets category. Did we not expect volatility? Are we to be shocked when circumstances change quickly in this most efficient of markets?

I look forward to having my SDL position increased in direct proportion to my non-concern over the USD-valuation of these assets. I also look forward to participating in governance activities with those stakeholders who most clearly see the intrinsic value of protocol ownership.

4 Likes
4

For the record, this would be up for a Council vote, not a general up/down SDL-backed vote. That is the pattern established by SLURP-1. But glad to hear the support from both of you!

2 Likes
5

I am for this proposal as well. Despite the past events, I think this shows that the LPL/SDL team still has its community at its heart and wants to rectify the previous actions taken.

As @Flannelhandler mentioned, it defiantly is the right step in improving general sentiment within the community.

A question for the LPL team (@LinkedEric, @Sylvarant, etc), In the proposal, I can see 3 tranches of eligible receivers for the airdrop. For my understanding, will the LPL team be eligible to receive an airdrop of SDL from tranche 1 + 2, from the c 71m LPL they held at the 25 November snapshot?

Secondly, are node operators + the LPL team eligible to receive an airdrop of SDL per tranche 3 as they are SDL holders?

2 Likes
6

LinkPool, other node operators, and Chainlink Labs would NOT be eligible for any of the distributions. I will make this more explicit in my post that this is intended only for community/retail holders of SDL. Thanks for the feedback!

2 Likes
7

Thanks, @LinkedEric, really appreciate the quick response.

2 Likes
8

I dont get why there are three different tranches for the airdrop.

The purpose of the airdrop should be to make linkpool holders whole, so why isnt the airdrop just based on the first snapshot?

1 Like
9

All in for this. While I still believe trust was broken, this is definitely a step in the right direction to better represent the old LP and LPL holders.

2 Likes
10

I am for this proposed SLURP. The conversations around the blog post leading to this air drop proposal have been contentious (and rightfully so), but I certainly believe it is a step in the right direction to move the community forward. The proposal increases the community governance reach, and that is certainly something to celebrate.

2 Likes
11

I believe this proposal could have a far more interesting dynamic with a vesting mechanism.

I.e. The lock-up mechanism begins with an 90% fee for vesting SDL early which will decay linearly. If tokens are vested early, the percentage of tokens that are still applicable to the fee will be sent back to a treasury. After one year, the fee would reach 0% and no tokens would be burned when vesting SDL.

This mechanism should further align incentives for the community to get involved and help increase the value of the SDL ecosystem on its early stages.

1 Like
12

I am strongly opposed to this proposal as it will unfairly impact LPL holders who were not closely following the project at the time of the migration or those who did not have physical access to their wallets and who therefore could not migrate.

I instead propose that there be two categories:

  1. A 50% allocation of the 14,339,796 SDL to those who held LPL on November 25, 2022 (excluding LinkPool).

  2. A 50% allocation of the 14,339,796 SDL to those who retained more than 50% of their LPL or migrated SDL on December 16, 2022. Those who purchased SDL from December 5, 2022 onwards and who did not sell any of their SDL before December 16, 2022 will also be eligble for this portion of the airdrop.

I also propose that:

  1. SDL not claimed within the 180 day period be distributed to those eligible across the two categories in order to maximise compensation.

This would also ensure that the circulating supply would remain rounded (215,370,000 SDL).

1 Like
13

This is me, original crowd sale contributor who still has LPL as no wallet access to migrate yet. Will I lose out because I haven’t migrated? Seems unfair

1 Like
14

Im assuming the different categories were chosen to minimize the impact on token price when people choose to dump.

A vested airdrop, like ari proposed, but based only on the LPL snapshot would be a better way to make the community whole in my opinion.

15

One has to ponder, if we give more SDL to people who were discontent with the re-organization of Stakelink, and those people want the improved yield rate for Link…won’t they just sell the SDL again? To again try to persuade the NOPs to increase the yield? To again try to compel the teams to re-organize the system.

Just a thought. Is airdrop/coin re-distribution the solution, or is yield rate adjustment the solution to bring community members back into the staking community.

Could we simply predicate the $SDL LINK APR to market conditions…for example, if $LINK >$30, Then stSDL APR(for LINK)=5%…and so on so forth. In essence, initial investors/stakers guarantee the runway for stakelink to run operations in a market tight environment; however, as chainlink scales its programs, ideas, and inventions, as it accrues network effects, leading to the presumed rise of chainlink asset price, we enable stakelink to grow, stabilize its runway, and by way of smartcontract ensure that at a certain market price, stakelink begins to provide handsome $LINK rewards.

Just thoughts.

16

f5meo Will I lose out because I haven’t migrated?

According to the spirit of the proposal, I tend to believe that non-migrated LPL holders would qualify for all 3 tranches. Perhaps the portion of the allotment intended for those users could be set aside for them to claim when it is possible for them to do so.

SepLink: Could we simply predicate the $SDL LINK APR to market conditions…for example, if $LINK >$30, Then stSDL APR(for LINK)=5%…and so on so forth.

Do you mean by having NOPs subsidize community SDL yield until the platform revenue is high enough to sustain a certain APR?

17

@LinkedEric Can we have confirmation of the situation for LPL holders? From my reading they would only qualify for the first tranche of the airdrop and not all three as Fox suggests.

In regards to SDL yield… where does the money come from? Node operators would leave if they had to contribute.

The best solution I see is directing part or all of the platform fee of 3% towards community SDL members for a period of time (say 12, 24 or 36 months). This can be limited to LPL holders as of the 25 November, 2022 snapshot.

However, this would impact LinkPool’s revenue and therefore SDL’s development so may well be shortsighted in terms of expansion and longer term returns. Maybe a future commitment? Perhaps a fund of LINK set aside for three years that is earmarked for LPL holders who commit to that time period. In the first three years, LinkPool is able to access this fund, if approved by the Council. After that it is distributed as compensation.

1 Like
18

Hi @EqS, thanks a lot for sharing your feedback. Yours is an interesting case and your post raises a valid point in my opinion. However I think the solution could be more simple than creating two new subgroup categories. Instead, we could add in the second and third subgroups proposed by @LinkedEric current LPL or linkLPLA holders who retained 50% of their stack by the Dec 16th date, and to apply for the third subgroup, it would be 100% of your LPL and linkLPLA on December 16th. In that case, people who didn’t have access to their wallet would be completely covered with a relatively simple tweak to the initial proposal.

Looking forward to hear everyone’s thoughts on this, but specially @EqS, @f5meo and @LinkedEric

2 Likes
19

Why arent you just basing it on the first snapshot. It would be the most logical thing to do.

Please explain why these categories were chosen at all, i really dont get it.

The purpose of the airdrop should be to make linkpool holders whole, not treating some of them unfairly because they reacted quickly and tried to protect their capital.

1 Like
20

Fox: No. I think the whole point is that they currently don’t have the subsistence to be able to do operations if they give out a huge yield to community members. It makes more sense to wait to obtain yields until operations are healthy. So a smartcontract negotiated solution may perhaps work. Once $LINK reaches a certain threshold, then $SDL begins paying out higher percentages of $LINK.

1 Like