Uniswap made a minimum of 400, and for users that provided the most liquidity to the pools they got compensated with more tokens.
Also UNI token received a good resistance on the past bear markets and helped uniswap to recover most of their locked liquidity from the sushiswap split.
So overall people trust and have a great perspective about uniswap thanks to this small gesture.
Besides, most of the comp tokens will eventually end up being farmed by big whales (like the one farming with 500M DAI).
I agree with you, Compound is first defi dapp which I used and I have remained consistent to this day but decision is on big players with more COMP tokens (Dharma, a16z etc.).
And I like your distribution proposal - not to be purely socialist but over time tokenomics has the effect that in the open market (the invisible hand from Smith) tokens find their way to users who really believe in the project.
Totally makes sense to reward early Compound users. Many of them should have a lot of experience and expertise in DeFi and itâs crucial for the Compound community to keep such users interested to contribute to the ecosystem.
More than 1200 people on twitter voted for this question. (its closed now)
69% is for a Yes.
About 22% want to discuss the percentage (5% more or less)
People want this. An example of these kind is UNI token. The retroactive UNI rewards should be rewarded with a nobel price of economic incentive. Student all around the world get rewarded with UNI just bc the invested TIME into the project. Without those students and early users there was no Uniswap. This is also true for compound. The early users/developers who invested TIME into this should be rewarded with governance power. The VC alone is not enough to level this project up. Those 5000 addresses are not all interested in governance, and probably sell COMP. But they all remind it to be not a project that only listen to big money. And that is good thing.
Anyhow, hope to see the proposal soon. I will certainly vote for YES and I will talk to others also.
Iâm in favor of supporting the early users, as it rewards those who helped grow the protocol when it was not as well known as well as puts Compounds governance in the hands of those who likely know its interworkings and needs intimately, therefore making them highly qualified to make tough decisions about its future.
What is your argument about every opinion you writeâŚ
Some persons cant access the community forum but you get instant access with one sentence per post.
Shame on you - community admin
This would make total sense and should be positive for the protocol in the long run. Uniswap gained many more active users and dedicated supporters after their UNI distribution to early adopters. (Would be a fun exercize to analyze those accountâs activity and UNI balance before and some months after UNI distribution.) I could see the same same happening for Compound!
4 year distribution span is also a great idea to keep people experimenting with protocol for an extended time.
Been using compound since 07/2019, was also in the Dao. Currently coding an auto-deleveraging bot to mitigate my risk (seeing as to what happened with DAI).
I was actually was excited when comp announced governance. But seems yield farming took a over and was an unforeseen consequence of comp issuance?
Perhaps early adopters who to the risk with the platform back then, and who are still users now are fit to be given even slight recognition of their support?
Compound was able to use our early funds to grow into the mammoth it is today. By recognizing and rewarding early participants you will reach a wide audience of crypto enthusiasts from new to old! I joined compound for the thrill of seeing a Decentralized lending site utilizing the sophisticated Ethereum Blockchain. I as an original user, helped bring 2 other people personally I know to your platform that have never used crypto before (and they loved the APY)! So by airdropping original users you are reaching people that were brand new to crypto. My two cents!!! Vive la Compound!!!
Finally got around to a more extensive response. Sorry for the delay.
First of all, I donât believe that the Compound protocol owes anyone anything. Early adopters chose the use Compound for the product that Compound offered when they used it. There is no status quo set up by other retroactive airdrops that we are required to follow. That being said, the Compound community should carefully allocate its available resources to grow the protocol as much as possible.
Should There Be an Airdrop
It seems that many are pro a COMP airdrop because of personal gain. I donât think we should seriously consider those who are encouraging an airdrop because they want âfree money.â However, I still believe that an airdrop to early users could be advantageous to the Compound community for the reasons highlighted by @alive . The core Compound community still desperately needs growthâwe need more âpower usersâ and active governance contributors. Giving people a vested interest in Compound is a way to acquire the human capital we desperately need. Think of it as a multi-million dollar marketing campaign. Early adopters of Compound are a logical choice for the target of this campaign. They already have a connection to the protocol, and an airdrop may encourage them to become more involved and more connected.
How Much
I donât believe that 100 COMP is an appropriate amount to airdrop to all early users. The argument provided that 100 COMP is needed for an autonomous proposal, doesnât make sense to me. The limits placed on proposals and autonomous proposals are there to prevent spam but also to encourage collaboration. Governance must be a collaborative process. Providing each early adopter with enough COMP to create an autonomous proposal is backward from this point of view. We want to encourage more collaboration, not less. Each user of Compound doesnât need to be able to create an autonomous proposal on their own. They can collaborate with a few other Compound community members and together create an autonomous proposal. With that in mind, Iâd be much happier giving ~20 COMP to each early user.
How
I believe that an airdropped COMP should be staked initially. Our mission is to give more people a vested interest in Compoundâif they can sell their COMP immediately, this defeats the whole purpose. I have been working on a staking mechanism for COMP with another Compound community member for a while now. It is an extensive project, so it will take some more time, but I implore the community to wait until I finish this project to execute any retroactive airdrop. My staking mechanism will allow users to maintain their COMP delegation rights and earn a yield on their staked COMP. It would be possible for an airdrop to go directly towards their staked balance and be withdrawn after a set amount of time.
TLDR:
The Compound protocol does not owe anyone anything; however, an airdrop to early users could bolster involvement in the Compound community, which would be worthwhile. This airdropped COMP should be staked initially which requires new contracts that I am in the process of building.
The amount of COMP received by the airdrop should be decided by the community.
I strongly believe that 100 COMP for early users is still a good choice (the minimum to present a proposal), and itâs going to be in four years.
This is nothing compared to the amount of COMP the whales will farm and dump every year.
Also, I donât agree in gate keeping the airdrop from early users. Everyone should be free to take their own decisions. This is a one time airdrop that could reflect the trust of the community with compound.
5% in the hands of the community is hundred times better than in the hands of the whales.
I am also in for 100 COMP Instead of 20 COMP. Its not the personal gain, but more that these actions could only be executed ones. So do this good and strong and make impact instead of choosing to staying weak.
If I remember correctly prominent eth community members weâre given 10,000 comp to get them to contribute to the development and governance of the protocol.(@rleshner pls correct me if Im wrong sir) While some have been keeping updated and have regularly been voting (Some have seemed to stop caring, yes calling you out RSA), also it seems I have yet so see some of them create proposals or throw in their 10 cents in this discussion board. Some even havenât signed up on here.
Also, I think some are hesitant in distributing comp, because market price is being attributed to those comp being distributed. Ofcourse it would be a lie to say those who are going to be recipients havenât considered the financial aspect as well. But right now really, the only thing COMPâs value is for being a tool for governance. Thereâs no share of interest payments/thereâs no burn/thereâs no staking. (If I had 100comp Iâd be proposing 25% share of the reserve factor, and 20-30% of liquidation discount be allocated for a weekly buyback + burn pool. Or maybe return it to reserves, Lol)
But if the point is to get those who are being airdropped to contribute and propose, a regular vesting plan seems to be counter intuitive. Token transfer vesting might be more suitable, by slowly allowing a set of tokens to be transferred eventually, airdop recipients can make proposals and contribute from the get go rather than waiting for the amount of comp to accrue until one has a significant impact. Although this would also entail upgrading the comp token contract.
I do not believe that community members were given any COMP to encourage contribution. Some were delegated to (like me), but do not own the COMP.
As for a vested airdrop, the idea is that people would have immediate access to the entire governance value of the airdrop (voting and delegation), but not immediate access to the economic value of the airdrop.
Many early community members who volunteered to participate were delegated voting rights. The governance platform was rolled out in stages, and many folks on the leaderboard were delegated to from early COMP holders.
