IIRC it’s my comment that’s in error, it should say “one week before the COMP token announcement” (similar to one week before the COMP distribution in the commented out one), based on conversation here and in the Discord. This is still an adjustable parameter at this stage of the discussion.
2 Likes
It should be before the COMP distribution.
2 Likes
One week before the COMP announcement doesn’t make much sense to me. The users that used compound before feb 19 and those that used it between feb 20 and feb 26 had the same lack of knowledge of the compound governance announcement.
I encourage the group to consider block 9555730 at Feb-25-2020 11:59:09 PM +UTC as the latest cut off before compound governance became public knowledge.
4 Likes
I agree, the first real airdrop happened half a year later (UNI), and the announcment is not relevant. The announcement could be compared to the claim that Coinbase has an oracle solution - and it was also an “announcement”
why 1 week? is there a reason?
2 Likes
too many cooks spoil the broth
it’s impossible to please every one
I agree with all of you, but majority rule,or world without end.
powerful person ,it’s time to make a decision
8 Likes
We are running into analysis paralysis by tying in all forms of Compound interaction. It is likely that many of the more complex interactions will require one-off or custom solutions, if they can be resolved at all. I would vote to tackle each problem individually in their own proposals. Start with what is the “simplest”: rewards to individual users interacting with Compound as in @allthecolors current list. It has been seven months since this was first proposed and it can easily be that much more to sort out all the individual loose ends if we group them all into one mega proposal
10 Likes
I agree, this whole “one week before” thing doesn’t make any sense and seems completely arbitrary.
1 Like
It seems there is consensus enough to put the proposal to a vote?
2 Likes
I interacted as an ‘early user’ with the Compound protocol through my Argent wallet address because the gas fees were paid and that was attractive even at the time (way cheaper gas). I also loved (and still love very much) the idea and added security of an user-friendly proxy-type address (which Argent offers).
Now my Argent address appears in the Early Users CSV files but it doesn’t appear in any of the CSV files in the ‘proposals’ folders. It’s not in the Sybil attack exclusion list either.
I know these lists aren’t final, but I just want to say that I think the governance should propose the most inclusive proposal so that it doesn’t get defeated (for example Mr. Leshner stated he would fight proposals that exclude proxy users). There is no basis for excluding smart wallets users, as Compound is a protocol, not a centralized front-end. Now I do understand an inclusive proposal requires extra filtering work, but I am convinced it will be worth it in the end.
4 Likes
Interesting. Where can I find the early users csv. Would someone mind sharing it with me please.
Okay I figured it from previous comments. Any ETA on the airdrop ?.
Thanks to everyone who came up with this great idea, which benefits the protocol a lot for sure once implemented.
2 Likes
Newbie here and I am not an early user of compound and do NOT benefit personally in any way with this proposal. Here’s my 2 cents. It reflects extremely poorly on compound that a proposal that started in Nov 2020 does not any clarity/clear deadline in May 2021. So atleast let’s set a firm date (say June 15,2021) and work backwards and come to a resolution either way.
2 Likes
Lastly, super minor feedback for @rleshner on the language used here “Excluding smart contracts is a dangerous approach that disenfranchises most users, and I will actively fight against it.” … Personally, I am 100% aligned with your logic here and would support this.
But you need to be very careful about how you express it. The entire purpose of decentralized governance is to provide confidence that every protocol user has a say in protocol governance decisions. As a newbie, If i see a protocol founder with heavy allocation of compound/voting rights take a stand using such strong language, it gives me little confidence that my opinions (when they differ) makes sense
Nothing personal against @rleshner and i am a big fan of your contributions in this space overall 
2 Likes
i think the proposal already failed
2 Likes
ohh okay. That’s cool then. Sorry, I am a newbie and did not realize this proposal already failed…and just assumed it was just dragging on for the last 7 months…
1 Like
This proposal has NOT failed.
Currently @allthecolors is attempting to include all smart contract users that indirectly interacted with Compound including his already 30,000 list of users. He was attempting to get access to a Node to run his tests.
It takes time to do the airdrop correctly, we still have a few tasks to accomplish.
-
We probably want to have users get Vested tokens(a slow stream COMP of tokens over 4 years). Since we cannot change the Governor Bravo contract because it will increase Gas usage, we should maybe look at a stand alone contract that will preform the functions of Vesting, Gas Less Voting, and allocating the appropriate amount of COMP. This needs work anyone able to code this sort of contract please contact @allthecolors.
-
We need include Smart contract users that indirectly interacted with COMP in order to reward every user fairly. @allthecolors has attempted but could use help at his github: GitHub - 0xA1176ec01045/CompEarlyUserAnalysis
I understand you want to rush things, but for as large of an airdrop as this will be we need to use caution.
Anyone interested in seriously helping with coding a contract for vesting talk to gauntlet and @allthecolors about maybe getting their code for use in in a Vesting Contract.
Maybe combine it with Comp.vote (gasless voting) in order to allow people to vote with the held funds, while they slowly get released quarterly for 4 years…
I have read most responses, we are into the technical parts of the distribution and with Vesting and high gas costs we need to be responsible. Please try to be up to date before posting.
@allthecolors received a 10,000$ Compound Grant to work on this proposal last week! Congratulations and well deserved.
16 Likes
So 30k and including all smart contracts or wallets it could go up to 50k users. If the reward amount of 500k comp stays the same then it boils down to 10 comp per user correct ? That’s a big deal for Many I would think for sure but curious how these users can take part in governance since user would need at-least 100 comp to participate in governance if am not wrong. Thanks
1 Like
Thanks @ManTheWheelz for condensing the recent activity here! Longer threads like this really need it periodically, and it helps when the updates come from different folks along the way.
Yes, the Compound Grants program is supporting me to address finer details and questions related to the early user analysis. These include handling of early users interacting with the protocol via smart contracts (@allo, Argent addresses are coming!) as well as an update to the capital-weight model based on total interest rather than the more-complex-in-theory yet easier-to-implement model described in my earlier posts. I don’t expect the capital weight revisions to change most users’ weights much, but like @ManTheWheelz said, given the potential size of this proposal, it’s important to get those details right so that there are no surprises between what the proposal says and what it actually does.
@cryptobuddy_1712, early users would still be able to use this COMP to vote or delegate (though maybe not immediately depending on how vesting is implemented). They would however not be able to submit their own Compound Autonomous Proposal (CAP) unless holding 100+ COMP. Earlier in the thread I floated the idea of a separate proposal to reduce the minimum COMP threshold for submitting a CAP to align it with whatever form this distribution might take. I’m not sure that idea has much traction so far, but it’s one of our options.
I’ll have more to post in the coming days. For now I just want to say thanks everyone for the support and constructive criticisms to date. Looking forward to delivering the data needed to help shape these ideas into a proposal that the entire community, from the first depositors to those setting up Gateway validators, is excited to get behind.
18 Likes
Thanks for the continued work. As a long time, but small time user, how does the “capital-weight model” work out? I realize it might not be determined, but is there to be a lower limit for received COMP, or could one end up with a very small fraction if the contribution didn’t include a significant amount of capital? Also, will the capital-weight be relative to the total capital at the time? Sorry for any “repeat questions”, and thanks for recap by @ManTheWheelz.
3 Likes
I still have my node up and running, and happy to help if you need
2 Likes