Should Compound Retroactively Airdrop Tokens to Early Users?

@rleshner - When there is a f*** hack, compound is a decentralized governance community. But when majority of early adopters were planned to be rewarded - its 2-3 centralized individuals who can say NO to a retroactive airdrop for a proposal fully supported by community without it even going to a vote. What an irony !!!


A bunch of opinions for retroactively airdop… dont want to do.
What should be done? What should not be done?
now everything is sxxt
its really disappointed at all

1 Like

Because Compound protocol isnt decentralized governance community. It may become one day, but right now it’s just permissionless. We need to wait for the decision of the “big players” on the last problem, so we will see what other decentralized component protocol has.

Agreed. It can only be decentralized some day in future, if COMP is better distributed to community and one of the easiest tools we have is to airdrop tokens to early users.

It’s not like big holders are against this, as proposal was started by @alive.

@allthecolors - could you do us a favor and tag those 2/3 individuals who opposed and literally shut this down without even a vote. I (and the community) are very curious to hear their viewpoints


The one who has the biggest voting power in COMP is the one who create this thread, the founder himself several times voiced in favour of an allocation.
I am asking, after all the work that was provided and the board, what is really blocking us back from making the proposal right now ?
@blck said the community should come at least with the full adresses history of early users, done with the work of allthecolors
@rleshner asked one a vote the opinion over an allocation for early users, which was widely in favour
@alive asked the feedback of the community over an allocation for early users, I think a lot of feedback have been given by now…

So, we only need one, one person with enough comp, who either think the earliest users should have a non-0 Comp allocation, either, at least, think that this deserve to go on a vote due to the community support.


The only way comp can restore some confidence and credibility after such an exploit and debacle is by rewarding its early adopters and proving its decentralized roots and ethics.


Agreed. This proposal should be passed. I was an early candidate to work at Compound before it was even developed. I’m sad to see early adopters such as myself ignored in favor of whales. The best thing for Compound to do to mitigate their current press disaster is airdrop to historical users. I suggest doing the airdrop in vested tokens that can be unlocked via providing liquidity.


Our other option is to appeal/request newly minted COMP exploit addresses to help create a vote for us.

Once we have a vote, I am pretty confident all the work @allthecolors put together will pass due to community support, inspite of opposition from 2-3 individuals.


why creater dont do anything?

@allthecolors - Can you share a little more light on the 2-3 individuals who are blocking this effort? i am genuinely curious to hear their view…and we all hate to see all your hard work go waste…

1 Like

If you search for the word “individuals” in this thread, you’ll find that there is only one poster repeatedly pushing this idea / rumor that there are “2-3 individuals blocking this effort”. It’s not true, and in my opinion, persistently promoting the idea of naming and shaming individuals for their perspective on a governance issue is misaligned with the community’s values.

No on-chain vote can happen until we have executable code for the protocol to implement, so it doesn’t really make sense to imply that there is some kind of vote suppression when there aren’t formal protocol actions to vote on yet!

Folks who would like to see this idea move forward to a proposal can help in any of the following ways. I’m sure there are others, but these are the ones I’m aware of:

(1a) If you are a solidity developer: implement a merkle root distributor that allocates testnet COMP to accounts using your preferred distribution model (see spreadsheet from @Cryptocraig posted earlier), deploy it on Kovan or Ropsten, and share it with the community for review and feedback.

(1b) If you are not a solidity developer, you could do some outreach/networking to see if we can find someone interested in taking on the merkle root distributor project, either as a learning opportunity, or as a proposal for future grant support.

(2) Read closely @getty 's thread on the future of COMP distribution and the forum activity since the bug in proposal 62. It is a difficult period to discuss the protocol’s token allocation after losing control of a single-digit percentage of the supply, but those discussions will need to carry on, and if you believe that an allocation to early users should be part of the conversation, then your voice is needed in those discussions.

By the way, in his recent remarks at the Compound Grants Summit at Eth Global, @rleshner commented that the initial token distribution is among the handful of things he would do differently if he could go back in time and build Compound from scratch again. Folks who have expressed a disinterest or opposition to an early user airdrop understand the value of empowering early users. I guess I just want to emphasize that the world is not black-and-white and that there is common ground to be found among the different ideas out there on how to effectively allocate protocol-controlled COMP.

If we can get a merkle root distributor implemented and thoroughly tested, I think there will be a willingness among the broader community to discuss what non-zero fraction of the available COMP could be justified for this initiative. What do you say?


Hey @allthecolors - Big fan of your work on this. You don’t have to beat around the bush to point out out that a poster is claiming 2-3 individuals are blocking effort. That is me.

I got this idea from your post from Sept 9

“Given recent sentiment among some larger COMP holders around this idea, currently I think the momentum on this initiative is best framed as …blah blah”

Until this date, the community was engaging on dynamics of airdrop - what wallets or smart contracts to include or exclude in the criterion, and all of a sudden you get into a meeting with a grants committee and come back with this post that a few large COMP holders dont like this idea and kill this entirely. While i am a fan of your work, you have no right to stop this in its tracks and kill it completely, leaving us in blind on who these “large COMP holders” are. There is no conspiracy here…

Coming back to me, ironically i am not even an early user and will gain nothing if this succeeds. But my agenda is to see this put to a formal vote, and let everyone see how current COMP holders voted for/against it.

There are so many users like @TylerEther who already said they will vote “No” to airdrop and justified their response. I have amazing respect for folks like them. All i want to see is this being put to vote and coming to any reasonable conclusion (fail/pass)

Based on your most recent post, if all it takes to put this to vote is some sort of merkle root distributer, let’s all focus our attention on it, and plan next steps.


Agree all we need is yes or no instead of dragging this topic for years.


when do the proposal

In this context, it’s worth reading A16Z’s just released policy framework for web3, which fervently makes the case for DAOs as a new and superior org structure.

A16Z lays out a vision in which DAOs can perform basic functions of traditional organizations, including “pay taxes”. It also means that, in my view, to unlock their full potential, DAOs need to adopt and tailor the high-growth strategies espoused by Reid Hoffman in his book “Blitzscaling”, where capital efficiency is not the immediate goal.

To me, it’s a bit of a surprise that many DAOs (including Compound, as exemplified by this topic) are too focused on capital efficiency and not moving fast enough to capture the full potential of their platforms and protocols.

In the big scheme of things, awarding 100 COMP to each of the early users (5% of the total COMP supply) seems very reasonable, if it can even marginally create a stronger community. With decentralized protocols, there is no protection for intellectual property. What builds the moat is a strong community.

At a minimum, we should take a vote ASAP, in the true spirit of DAOs. Regardless of the outcome, this topic doesn’t deserve so much time and energy, as to be in the top-trending list for over 10 months now.

1 Like

It is really nice to hear rleshner talking about historical users, and that the first thing he would have done differently with COMP would have been not to totally forget them in the governance allocation schedule. However, no, I do not see why it would be too late to revise it, and it is still time allocate a non-0 amount to historical users. I would say even more, just watch that most of the governance activity of the forum is directed toward this topic, this will have to be solved once for all at a point, and this is by progressing toward a proposal, or would remain an anvil around the neck of compound for the next decades.

Thank you again allthecolors for your suggestions, your participations has been a huge help toward the creation of the proposal.
I was studying the spreadsheet of Cryptocraig earlier.
I wanted to try the parameters which would induce the simplest, least arbitrary distribution, a distribution which would fit the current way comp is allocated, however applying it toward historical users (capital weighted), with an adding to that a socialized allocation.
However it was not possible because it seems that it is already applying a square root that can be only amplified, not removed.
Don’t forget the allocation to historical users would already be socialized compared to the current distribution : the mere existence of a % allocated toward the socialized distribution (per address) already « penalize » larger users and decentralize the distribution. Let’s keep it simple and the least arbitrary to be able to reach a consensus, and try to follow what became highest standard in the communities.
Applying some sort of square root in a way to socialize the allocation, would seem arbitrary, unwelcome by dividing the community (as suggest the replies on this page), and a duplicate(due to the fact part of the allocation proposed will be already socialized, per address)
Rleshner got a point there :

« Third, users should be measured by usage of the protocol. For an interest rate market, usage is a function of capital over time; how other protocols have distributed tokens to users is irrelevant to Compound. This approach was piloted during the second community vote 13, and formed the basis of the COMP Distribution when it began for users. Luckily, in Compound’s case, this can be easily measured by interest earned, and interest paid. »

So what I wanted to study is the following : it would be actually quite simple, around 16 millions interests have been paid+earned in the period we take into account for historical users, 24000 contributed for a non-0 interest paid/earned.
All we would need to decide is the total COMP : T,that compound should allocate toward its historical users

T=0…500k comp…1M comp etc

Once we get this T the canonical and non arbitrary way will be to split this number between the two types of allocations, firstly the capital weighted, measuring actual usage of the protocol, and secondly the socialized, per user. And these in a balanced way which needs to make consensus. (50%/50%) would seem the most natural choice, however pushing it to 60% socialized, 40% capital weighted, or the other way, would remain around the standards of the most successful governance distributions to historical users made in the industry. (but why not voting on it ?)

So for the example, let’s try it with 50/50.

T : total allocation to historical users
I : interest earned + paid by USER 1 during the historical period

So finally, the calculation of the allocation to the USER 1 is very simple and canonical since we now got all the data,

For the capital weighted allocation
the allocation of USER 1 would be

  • (T/2)*I/[16 Millions]

For the socialized allocation, the allocation would not depend on the User, by definition
and the allocation of USER 1 would be :

  • (T/2)/24000

where 24000 is the total number of addresses who interacted with comp (with a non -0 interest paid/received, note that maybe we need to add a few proxy users to that)

To conclude, however important is this possible distribution, I would agree with the idea of RogerS, we should go into a vote rapidly once we get the Merkle root distributor and call for help from all these who believe the historical users should not be allocated 0 governance tokens. The energy of historical users as well as of these who believed in the well founded of this future proposal and helped should at a point be preserved.
All the time and energy around this proposal would have been used toward other development if we could have get a bit more help to solve it before,
The initial allocation which didn’t grant any governance power of the protocol to historical users made/make the support of the founder, developers, Vcs and these detaining the largest voting power essential to pass this proposal.
But let’s not blame it only on others, maybe we could/can ourselves have done better to move faster… anyways it’s already amazing to realize that have now some good hope to submit and pass this proposal despite the initial flawed distribution which forgot us.
So lets focus on the next steps and try to progress as fast as possible to realize this future proposal.

For the non-devs, as allthecolors mentioned in (1b) I think what we can do to help is to ask estimate to blockchain companies for building this Merkle comp and submit it to the Comp grant, as this is the natural next step of the amazing and quality work provided by allthecolors, I will try this myself.


This topic has been in the back of my mind for quite some time now, and my stance has changed over the past few weeks.

Decentralization is important and the distribution of our token matters significantly. Talking to smaller voters and being a small voter myself, I understand how many users feel like their stance on proposals doesn’t matter when voting power is so centralized between a few entities.

Not only this but there are also regulatory risks with voting power being so centralized. What happens when government agencies make demands of our largest voters? It’s a real risk we must mitigate.

I think we could see more community and voter engagement if we improve our token distribution. Our community and users are ever so vital to our success!

I will support this initiative and will help direct it so that this topic doesn’t get dragged on for many more months/years.

I applaud everyone for all the hard work done on this matter! Especially @allthecolors!

To get this initiative moving forward, I think we need to utilize temperature checks. What does everyone think about me posting a temperature check proposal within the next few days - asking the question “Should Compound retroactively distribute tokens to early users?”


Please do @TylerEther. Really appreciate it

Really appreciate you doing that. Please do it asap. Let us all make comp great again.

agree with you, maybe 2,3,4,5…but with enough COMP power. We will not pretend not to know who these “individuals” are, it is enough to read a few threads where the interests of users and early investors conflict.
No one needs to be called out, but the question is whether “DAO” is going in the right direction given that venture capital funds control the situation?
Simply to protect their investment they need control and I don’t think they will let it go.
As for articles, shitposts and polls - we need to understand that this is marketing content (fairy tales).
@TylerEther I wonder when you changed your mind, before or after the comptroller leak?

1 Like