Thank you allthecolors for the help you provided which permitted to catalyze the wilingness of thousands to decide of an allocation to early users closer to the actual proposal. Since we are reaching close to the endof the more technical discussion over how to balance the allocations (number, vesting, etc), which I would be glad to discuss in an other message, I would like to come back to the core of the approach and recall the most relevant arguments that I have read in and around this discussion.
1)Compound own much of it’s success to it’s early users
« Compound owes much of its success to the thousands of community members that have joined its journey over the past two years. This is true particularly of the early users who provided liquidity (both as borrowers and lenders) before there was any monetary incentive to do so and of the early developers who opted for building on top of Compound before the launch of the COMP token. » by Alive
«-I would go even more drastic about retroactive rewards,
compound v1 started around Sep-26-2018 and COMP distribution started at Jun-15-2020 that means that early users used Compound for at least 2,5 year.
if we would want to be totally fair and give equal rewards for the users before COMP distribution started then 30.7% » by blck
2)The allocation toward early users will permits to strengthen a community and will participate to Compound long term success
« Crypto has always been about building networks that are owned and operated by their respective communities.-Crypto has always been about building networks that are owned and operated by their respective communities. » by Alive
« -If there is any group of people that is most likely to be aligned with Compound’s long term success, it’s that group. » by Alive
«-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. » by arr00
« Firstly you should get that getting COMP into the hands of dedicated early users who demonstrated strong interest in the protocol itself, rather than into the hands of whale farmers who don’t care about anything but yield, is great for comp and for comp investors. » by Andre1
« -Finally, we believe that token distribution models that reward bonafide early users and contributors are likely to create more engaged communities, and therefore more sustainable protocols. These are the types of users and developers who add value before a protocol achieves real network effects, or even has much inherent utility. Examples include [the early users ] » by Pollon
« -We believe that these are the types of users who are likely to be the best long-term stewards of the protocol. While any token distribution model must take into account regulatory considerations, we generally believe that efforts to reward these types of early adopters are likely to position a protocol for long-term success, and we look to support them wherever possible. » by Alive
« -Protocols that achieve meaningful decentralization are more likely to gain long-term adoption and sustainability than those that do not. While the potential design space of governance is massive, we remain guided by this basic principle, and support initiatives that we feel embody it » by Pollon
« -The addresses that receive COMP should be early users that risked their time and capital to establish the protocol. » by rleshner
3) There is an extreme excitement and support around this proposal
I am impressed that we are here in the most active discussion, despite we are approaching a year of discussion and not much support from the core developpers, 29k views. However the support of the founder himself helped to obtain the compound grant which acted as a successful tool to help organize the research making it soon possible to apply for a proposal. In the same way the twitter polls launched by the founder with 1202 participants showed a 69% of voters in favour of an allocation of Comp to early users.
There is an obvious wish from a large part of the community to, when we would move toward a proposal, vote in favor of a non-0 Comp allocation for early users. Even if the interest of a few holders might seem to diverge in the very short term (which I do not agree with), we can appreciate that a16z, one of these holders and one of the biggests Vcs in Defi, is pushing throught this topic in favor of allocating a part of the Comp toward the early users, forgotten by the current distribution system until now. The longer term view should win against some shorter term interests of a few.
I think the question of an allocation for early users is independant from the other topics and it would be wise to move toward a vote now that we got all the datas provided by allthecolours throught the grant.
We could for example start by voting over the total number of COMP which should be allocated toward early users, starting from 0 (current distribution without allocation for early users)
And secondly we could vote over the specific way this allocation should be granted, in a balanced way between user and capital which will have to make consensus to permit it to proceed.
