Same issue applies for DeFi Saver users who have been interacting with Compound via dsproxies (or Smart Wallets as we call them in the UI).
Compound was initially integrated in DeFi Saver in June 2019 and we’d hate to see a great number of early Compound adopters disregard in this initiative.
Just like Itamar mentioned for Argent, we too could (very quickly, in a matter of days) provide a specific list of dsproxies that interacted with Compound, in line with the eligibility clauses outlined in this summary.
Now that I’ve attempted to account for proxy interactions with Compound through on-chain data myself (thanks to @grasponcrypto for running part of the analysis!), I’ve come to a different conclusion about the Uniswap team’s motivations for excluding contract interactions: it’s simply way more labor-intensive to unwind these proxy interactions and find the initiating user on-chain
Which I would hope will not be the ending argument of this discussion.
Reaching out to teams like Argent, Dharma, InstaDapp and DeFi Saver would have been extremely simple and can still be done with minimum additional time needed.
I would strongly argue that which frontend was used makese no difference as long as it was very clear to users that they were using Compound - which definitely was the case in all the apps I’ve mentioned.
One of the main points of DeFi is decentralization, it is in the name after all. Which frontend was used by any users should make zero difference.
I’m proud member of DeFi ecosystem and I was using Compound with my Argent Wallet before it was cool
If the aim is to democratize the governance and increase participation with early users, it doesn’t matter which app they have used to test the protocol. This is against composability of the DeFi.
Early user should be defined as; a wallet which have interacted with Compound regardless of the way before a defined deadline.
Dont pursuit on filling your bag quickly, let us pursuit more democratic solution possible.
The poll is now closed and we see a quasi unanimity in favour of an allocation for early users.
To answer the post of rleshner I think the first question on the reason why obtaining an allocation for early users was widely discussed before we came into the technical aspects with the amazing work of allthecolors, who permitted to unblock the situation.
2. How many COMP should be distributed to early users?
It would be interesting to consider some elements as :“as many COMP as if the distribution of COMP token would have started from the day 1 of the protocol”, I think that then the number of 500k comp would seem very reasonable and little compared to the result obtained like it.
3. What should the vesting schedule, mechanics, and implementation be?
4. Which addresses should be eligible, and how should the quantity of COMP per user be calculated?
I find the approach of both a socialized and capital weighted reward an interesting on, as long as they are balanced, I also agree it would be certainly better to choose as a cut off date the date when COMP was announced, (as other protocols did), for the reason mentionned, but it is debatable (avoid adresses who came in only once comp was advertised and reward only early user here before incentives were announced)
About people mentionning proxy protocols. The social weighted reward will not be granted in the way allthecolors programmed the distribution but I want to note that these users will be eligible (at the discretion of the protocol of course) to the capital weighted reward. the proxy protocols will be able to get the capital weighted reward and distribute it to their users the way they wishes it as the proxy adress will aggregate the capital weighted reward if I am not mistaking
New user here, full disclosure I’m on the preliminary list and stand to benefit if this were to pass.
After reading all the discussion I’m in favour of trying to reach as many addresses as possible (minus manipulators). ETH community is built on decentralisation, this would help with awareness of the project and keeping users engaged. I actively follow all tokens with actual governance votes.
I tested compound but as a small user it did not make sense to leave my funds on the platform for a long time. But it was my first step in trusting code in Defi smart contracts, admin key risk and the devs, I think it’s great that we reward this in the ETH community. Really should be verify not trust, maybe one day I will learn to read code.
I also received UNI airdrop which I’m hodling, the only airdrop I have dumped some of so far is 1inch, I didn’t like how they have partnered with Binanace and how all their marketing changed. Investing with a long time horizon, I’m sure there will be others who see the long term vision instead of dumping.
Support a long vested time for the economic reward, but the ability to vote and make a difference I would be excited for short term. Also making the rewards expire if not claimed seems like a good decision.
There was lots of complaints with the UNI retroactive airdrop and wallets like Argent etc I think this needs to be addressed clearly in any announcement and vote if this moves forward.
Best of luck to the Compound community and dev’s on this big decision and with the platform moving forward!
Edit: One other thing I keep raising in all the projects is the ability to ping users with notifications that a vote is taking place, I think the whole ecosystem could move forward faster if we got more engagement. I think these guys might be working on it but I can’t see why there can’t be more solutions for this or if there is more awareness of them. The more active voters the more value I see in these governance tokens.
As a new comer investing in compound with a sub-midget sized investment, I would hate to see dilution. If you create dilution how will you recover it?
Vesting periods are good but are you really going to make people wait 4 years before they get voting rights if that is what you intend.
(just thinking out loud) If the issue is voting rights and creating proposals I would wonder if creating some static pools of 100 comp each that could be used to sponsor proposals.
I wanted to lend my voice to the support of this proposal. I had invested quite heavily into both borrowing and lending on Compound from mid-2019 to about April 2020, at which point I had to pull out all my funds to deal with personal fallout from the global pandemic. While I have the most respect for the Compound development team and their eagerness to help on their Discord, ultimately like in all things crypto, not having a real say on matters doesn’t give one the warm and fuzzy “decentralized” feeling. I am back in the system now but it will take me quite some time to accumulate a usable amount of COMP. A retroactive distribution would be a very welcome development by this user, and would be in line with the retroactive distributions conducted by others such as 1inch
As for how to accomplish the distribution, I support @allthecolors proposal of a roughly even 20 COMP for the majority of early users to cover the largest amount of early users with the least amount of overall inflation of the original pool.
My first interaction with compound was v1 of the protocol (feb.2019). I did this while trying out the protocol and with the believe Ethereum with be a good safe haven. So I supplied Ethereum but I never though it will give us any token. Stronger: the narratives at that time was: make a protocol without a token, tokens are not doing any good. We where in the middle of bear market and we all lost.
I than borrowed DAI and I found it extremely simple to do this. I promoted the protocol among friends and many other people. Supply Ethereum and borrow usd.
I than used out the protocol and followed other crypto project. But than suddenly last year the governance token COMP was announced. There was not even a chance to opt in, it was all ment for the big suppliers. I think that’s a mistake. We should have a guardians launch or and airdrop that rewarded all those first users.
I, and many others, where here in the deep red bear market and we I supported and used the protocol heavily. I, and many others, would like to discuss and think about governance of Compound. Don’t airdrop small, airdrop at least 100 comp (vested) to all users, small, big, supplier, borrower, and filter out bots.
Valuable members are scarce in the crypto community. The early users of Compound were pioneers in helping to support a platform without any belief they would be rewarded monetarily. It would only make sense to reward them with 100 Compound tokens which is life changing for many of them and would highly incentivize them to become long term committed active members.
Early Compound users have a different mentality. The tokens rewarded would create another batch of highly loyal and enthusiastic supporters that never had a monetary desire in using Compound. This will solidify Compound as it continues to grow and help strengthen the governance.
The real discussion is not whether early users should be reward, but whether Compound wants those early users to be loyal and committed to Compound. The community has the ability to do this, but only if they reward them truly and not with just small reward, but one that makes a splash in the crypto space.
Could the COMP be distributed by using a placeholder token? The placeholder token would give users the ability to “claim” their COMP for being an early user. The UI could have a button on the upper-right hand side, close to where the user’s address and their COMP balance is displayed. This method of distribution would decrease the chances of the COMP being ‘burned’ because of distributing COMP to addresses which are no longer in use or inaccessible.
Also, why does the distribution need to be an even amount of COMP? Why not divvy out what COMP is available then dividing it by the number of early users?
Give users 4 years to claim their COMP. The leftover balance, well, we have 4 years to determine what happens to it.
I struggle to understand why a user/address that interacted with Argent, for example, should be included in a COMP retro-active airdrop. If a user wanted to support the COMP protocol, it should have been a direct use case and not via a proxy front end.
If the shoe was on the other foot e.g. if Argent was to have an airdrop for early users, would they reciprocate in kind and airdrop tokens to COMP addresses?
Whats wrong with that tho. they contributed as much as we did going directly to compound. What other way do you know to where a user can simply download an app and add funds easily to compound with a few taps. they are just as important.
I agree it’s not as easy as Argent on a mobile. The users of Argent benefitted from the convenience provided, and the Argent platform benefited by drawing users to their platform.
As a side note, I sometimes think that it would be easier/simpler if the treasury for the airdrop was apportioned to the early unique addresses so that each would receive 100 COMP each so at least these addresses could make proposal outright i.e. a simple cut-off of early addresses each receiving 100 COMP voting rights at least
100 to the direct users would be good. I think it was changed due to the amount of addresses found (30k vs 5k mentioned in the first post). correct me if im wrong.
Yep, you’re correct on the 30k v 5k. So, if there’s 500k COMP available for the airdrop, for example, may as well apportion it to the first 5K unique addresses that interacted with the protocol. Not perfect, but at least they’d have 100 COMP to make a proposal.
To me, the 20 COMP distribution doesn’t really achieve the aim of engagement - if I was to receive 20 COMP, I’d just sell it because the utility, in the most part, is lost
