My guess is that this proposal was not created to make anyone whole -given that since the value proposition changed that’s just unit bias-, but rather to balance the supply between node ops, community and LinkPool, after the feedback received while rewarding users that are economically aligned with what the team is building.
Obviously the ones complaining are the ones who market dumped / sold before the Dec 16 snapshot and therefore do not qualify for the second and third group. The question should be, why would anyone want to give you more tokens if you are not economically aligned with the people participating in this discussion? That would be unfair to people that qualify for the three tranches and / or new SDL holders that arrived after December, people by far more aligned economically with the SDL community.
Hey @ChadoFork, thank you for your continued engagement and for sharing your vested airdrop idea with us all! I’m really interested in learning more about it, could you please provide more details? Can you explain how a vested airdrop would be executed, what timeframes would you suggest, who would be eligible for it, and what the rationale behind these decisions would be? Also, could you highlight the main benefits and drawbacks of this approach?
Having a clear understanding of your proposal will allow us all to carefully ponder it, have a more informed discussion and help us consider all the aspects of your idea, which also helps to build consensus around it
Im currently on the road and will gather my thoughts and post an in depth comment tomorrow if I get the time.
The gist of it is that people sold out of panic. The linkpool project was a niche crypto project and had a lot of long term supporters in the chainlink community. Many of them were long term holders without the plan to sell at all because of promises of passive income. This changed in an instant because of atrocious communication between Team and community.
These people are still supporters of chainlink, which means they are also economically aligned to the success of SDL in the case of a vested airdrop.
Clearly emotions have been running high and a lot of criticism and fud came from that group of people, who are pretty loud voices in the chainlink community.
A good way to clean the tainted name of linkpool and sdl would be to airdrop to that group of people.
A vested airdrop to that group of people, would lead to them being more economically aligned with the sdl project which would in turn lead to less criticism and fud from that group. Which in turn makes the project more attractive to newcomers.
Timeframe: i would propose multiple years, which would lead to the community coming back together after people let go of their anger.
Eligibility: As already said i think the most logical thing to do this would just be to base the airdrop on the last LPL snapshot.
Pros:
Support of long term chainlink holders
No airdrop dump bc of vesting
Less fud from long term holders
Cons:
Some people wont be happy with vesting
People who would profit more from the first airdrop proposition wouldnt be happy
For every sale there is a buyer; the cost of that exit was already borne at the expense of the DAO and of new buyers of SDL, and by those whose holdings were devalued because they chose not to sell. If by your reckoning this proposal is about compensation (a view I don’t agree with), where in your plan is the compensation for those who financed the sellers? LPL holders all qualify for tranche 1 regardless of what they chose to do, they are not excluded from the proposed airdrop even if they sold.
This is not how decentralised trading pools work, Its also the reason why the chart looks so bad.
There were a lot more sellers than buyers.
The sellers were financed by the LINK liquidity that was added by the team when the trading pool was created.
Even if I argue from the position that the purpose of the airdrop isnt to make users whole, but to rebalance the tokens between participants. I would still say that basing the airdrop only on the latest LPL snapshot would be the most fair thing to do.
Because the people who sold still have a right to their part of the tokens in the case of rebalancing.
People were pressured into selling because the whole situation was handled extremely bad by the team.
The migration was hyped up and the chosen date (the day before staking release), a moment people were waiting on for years, was a kick in the guts for long term supporters.
A lot of long term supporters lost their trust that day and then dumped their bags. With the information at the time, it was the most logical thing to do.
Chainlink is already a pretty niche crypto and sdl is a niche in the chainlink community. Having long term chainlink supporters on the side of sdl is a must for sdl to succeed.
Beyond the points that have already been brought by many but specifically @Sinbua , just wanted to add something that seems to be passing under the radar.
If you read carefully this SLURP, LinkPool is committing to burn a significant amount of their inicial distribution which was x5 larger than any other Node Op on the initial distribution. All LPL holders, including LinkPool, went through the same migration process. This initial distribution and now burning from LinkPool is something that already has benefited LPL holders and will eventually benefit the stake.link community as whole.
Having a fair and shared distribution is critical for a DAO governed protocol such as stake.link.
On the other hand, as I already said earlier, a linear vesting makes a lot of sense for token airdrops in general and more so in this particular case.
As a side note, it’s my understanding that the larger community believes that stake.link is aiming to become much bigger than LinkPool. 15 Chainlink node operators at launch and, if we get this right, many more to follow.
No, that is exactly how AMMs work. Liquidity from the pool comes from other people, whether that is the LP provider or the buyer on the other side of the trade. No one was “pressured” to sell, everyone must manage their own risk in the market and in that moment sellers decided they would rather hold LINK than SDL. This does not make them victims, it does not privilege them to any sort of airdrop, especially when that would come at the expense of people they already dumped on. They will nonetheless still receive 1/3 of the drop - if that is not sufficient, they already frontran the airdrop by selling, and may convert the LINK they received to SDL if they so choose.
I know how trading pools work, what I meant with that was that saying “for every seller there is a buyer” makes it seem like just as many people chose to buy sdl than sell sdl. I know that the trading pool can be viewed as buyer but your wording implied something else in my opinion.
Also you are implying that people who didnt sell are victims bc they already got dumped on by sellers and thus need more tokens from the airdrop than people who sold and in the same sentence youre saying that everybody needs to manage their own risk.
Im obviously arguing from the side of sellers and youre arguing from the side of people who didnt sell. I get your point.
Still i think it would be best to base the airdrop on the snapshot before this whole mess, to get the community back together.
No, that’s a false equivalence - I’m saying that those who sold have already received funds. Receiving an airdrop on top makes no sense, and specifically excluding SDL buyers and holders (which is what you’re proposing) is naked greed.
It makes a lot of sense if the majority of people in the community chose to sell, it would bring the community back together which would be positive for sdl because of the small public sdl is catering to ATM.
It makes zero sense to doubly reward those who dumped the pool. They are already receiving a third of the airdrop, if that isn’t enough to “bring them back together” that says a lot more about those individuals than it does about the community at large.
“Taking profit” is your colloquial term for taking money from the DAO, which is similar to your proposal that all current SDL holders should be excluded from an airdrop intended to extend voting power to those committed to DAO process. Nonsense.
I question why, from a governance standpoint, the protocol would want to increase the voting power of the least invested market participants at the proportional expense of its most deeply invested Stakeholders.
Diluting voting power of those who not only didn’t sell but acquired greater protocol ownership during the revaluations doesn’t seem like a good way to establish a general and strong alignment of interests (i.e. governance stability).
No, that would be a waste of my time. No governance vote should ever be informed by botspam, and no logical argument can be predicated on whatever you read on social media. SDL’s reputation is just fine - it is the reputation of people who incessantly spam on social media that is in question.
This is getting tiresome. If you truly believe sdl doesnt suffer from a reputation issue then there is no point discussion with you because were obviously living in different timelines.
