The proposed date of June 8th 2020 was quite widely publicised around the Ethereum community. It seems a shame to change it now. It would likely create a negative sentiment towards the Compound protocol amongst a number of early users, who are now going to miss out. I know many who have been following this thread closely for many months.
I am one of the users who would stand to benefit from a June 8th date, so I am of course somewhat biased. But I am also conscious of the 23.1k views on this thread, and how widely it was shared on Reddit, Discord, and other crypto communities. So it wouldn’t just be me missing out! Many in the community checked their address against the previously posted distribution list. They would now be disappointed to be cut out.
I should also note, that in a informal poll in this very same thread, the original distribution list was widely supported: Should Compound Retroactively Airdrop Tokens to Early Users? - #232 by allthecolors
This also creates a “black hole” between February 2020 - June 2020 where no Comp was distributed to users during that period (before distribution begun, but apparently too late for an early user airdrop).This seems strange to omit this one time period. The logic only appears to be on the basis of the announcement of an upcoming COMP token on Feb 26th. But there was absolutely no indication of a retrospective airdrop being on the cards at that time.
So, why now change the date, when the originally suggested date appeared to be widely supported? There is not really any clear indication in this thread as to why the date was changed since that poll was conducted back in April. A date change was suggested by one user in the thread following the poll, and it is in fact the suggested change of date which appears to be the main point of contention for some posters here. Nobody seemed to have a major issue with the originally suggested date.
I totally support the work to include more accurate capital weights, and make sure anybody who used the contract is included. But it seems we have included those extra users, at the expense of others included in the previously proposed distribution list.
It is clear a lot of time and effort has gone into making this proposal work. Thanks @allthecolors for the great work. I am sure the governance process will come to a sensible decision on these matters, and get this proposal into motion. These are just my thoughts (as a biased person admittedly!)