PSP 2.0 Renaissance - Social Escrow, Fee Redistribution, and Fairdrop

The effort and resources committed towards the preparation of this proposal is clearly magnanimous and thus deserve a kudos…Gracias for a job well done team.

I agree with most of the points stated in the proposal and I do hope this will ignite the flame of psp and propel the project to it’s deserved hight in the crypto space.

As noted by @0xYtocin, rewarding public goods that helps the protocol to grow shouldn’t be limited to onchain activities viz-a-viz, staking, trading, making or referral. There are other activities that directly helps the protocol and the DAO to grow that deserve reward. Since the said activities cannot be pulled from on chain data, a 5 members committee from the DAO and at least one team member could be inaugurated to curate a list of activities and individuals that qualify and how to reward them. This is also in tandem with the global budget proposal that was approved for PSP 1.0.

Another key area of the proposal is fairdrop. While many DAO members that have commented so far are not in support, I do believe it could be structured in way that leaves more people happy than disgruntled.

To keep things short, I would suggest a fairdrop that covers current stakers, holders and community members that were unfairly filtered out during the first airdrop. The proposed migration boost for stakers of psp1.0 might leave a lot of loyal and committed DAO members disappointed since this wouldn’t amount to much in comparison with the loss they might have incurred as a result of the price action over the last 1 year.

Conclusively, before we conclude whether a fairdrop is a way to go, let us look at all the scenarios from extreme point of views as this singular element in this proposal might be the determining factor for the sentiments psp 2.0 will receive.


The requirement to use at least 7 days should be removed. Instead, a minimum volume requirement of $100 can be introduced. Airdrop hunters usually trade for very low amounts.

For example, I used Paraswap once a day when I needed it because it was advantageous. If it is considered user-oriented, the volume and the number of transactions should be considered.

I condemn those who criticize Fairdrop. There were a lot of users who Deserved Airdrop. Couldn’t get it due to some mistake. PSP token price dropped 99%. I’m not sure if the airdrop will be worth anything. Despite this, I condemn those who criticize fairdrop again.

Original Post:

I) Fairdrop :

L’idée du fairdrop m’a tout d’abord paru absurde. Puis par la suite, il m’a semblé possible de nuancer mon avis tout en restant relativement catégorique sur les conditions.
L’idée étant la suivante, exclure d’office les farmers de airdrops qui, ayant manqué celui de PSP, ont ensuite fud le protocol malgré une efficience évidente.

J’ajouterai donc des critères aux propositions déjà émises pour le fairdrop

  1. L’adresse lésée devra avoir fait au minimum 5 transactions sur paraswap au cours des deux derniers mois. A compté d’hier, date de sortie de la première mouture du 2.0.
    Cela éliminera d’office tous ceux qui n’utilisent pas la plate forme.

  2. Mise en place de 3 paliers pour ne pas complexifier trop la chose.
    Nous partons du principe que l’adresse lésée répond aux critères initiaux et au nouveau critère des 5 transactions.

Palier 1
50% du airdrop prévu initialement si l’adresse est une simple utilisatrice du protocole

Palier 2
75% si cette dernière stake du PSP

Palier 3
100% si elle offre de la liquidité

Le montant importe peu car l’idée est de récompenser les utilisateurs petits et gros.

Quels bénéfices pour psp ?

  • Redorer son image auprès des vrais utilisateurs et contributeurs.
  • Esceller les farmeurs de airdrop et fudeurs.
  • Rendre impossible la mauvaise presse du fairdrop car cela serait vraiment honnête.
  • Faire parler de psp et de sa nouvelle version.

II) Augmentation du paraboost grâce au lock.

A l’instar de Alpaca. Nous pourrions imaginer une augmentation du paraboost en fonction d’une durée de lock des sePSP.

Plus la durée de lock est longue plus le boost l’est également.
Le boost ne dépendant pas du nombre de token mais bien de la durée de lock.

Toujours à l’instar d’alpaca, offrir une possibilité d’unlock payante.

Il faut que les frais de delock soient raisonnables car l’idée n’est pas de punir les utilisateurs mais de les recompenser pour le lock et de les former à ne pas prendre de décisions attives.
Une “amende” qui dépend donc du lock restant et du nombre de token à unlock.
Cette amende serait directement remise dans les caisses de la Dao.
Le lock des epoch restant inchangé. C’est juste une couche supplémentaire.

Du merch :

C’est bête mais le sentiment d’appartenance est un élément important de différenciation et d’adoption.
En fonction de la durée d’engagement des sePSP les users pourront au fil du temps réclamer du merch (chaussettes, casquettes, stylo etc) ça coûte pas cher et ça fidélise.

Admin Note: I’m providing a DeepL translation of the post so everyone can understand it. The original post is above:

I) Fairdrop :

The idea of fairdrop seemed absurd at first. Then, it seemed possible to nuance my opinion while remaining relatively categorical about the conditions.
The idea being the following, to automatically exclude airdrop farmers who, having missed the PSP one, then fudged the protocol despite an obvious efficiency.

I will therefore add criteria to the proposals already made for fairdrop

  • The injured address must have made at least 5 transactions on paraswap during the last two months. As of yesterday, when the first version of 2.0 was released.

  • This will automatically eliminate all those who do not use the platform.

  • We have set up 3 levels to avoid making things too complex.

  • We assume that the address meets the initial criteria and the new criterion of 5 transactions.

Tier 1
50% of the initial airdrop if the address is a simple user of the protocol

Tier 2
75% if the address is a PSP stakeholder

Level 3
100% if it offers liquidity

The amount does not matter as the idea is to reward small and large users.

What are the benefits for psp?

  • To improve its image among real users and contributors.
  • To scare away the airdrop stuffers and fudgers.
  • Make it impossible for fairdrop to get bad press because it would be really honest.
  • Make people talk about psp and its new version.

II) Increase the paraboost with the lock.

Following the example of Alpaca. We could imagine an increase of the paraboost according to a lock duration of the sePSP.

The longer the lock duration, the higher the boost.
The boost does not depend on the number of tokens but on the lock duration.

Like alpaca, offer a paid unlocking option.

The delock fees should be reasonable because the idea is not to punish users but to reward them for locking and to train them not to make atative decisions.
A “fine” that depends on the remaining lock and the number of tokens to unlock.
This fine would be paid directly into the Dao’s coffers.
The epoch lock remains unchanged. This is just an additional layer.


It’s silly but the sense of belonging is an important differentiator and adopter.
Depending on how long the sePSP’s have been committed to, users will be able to claim merchandise (socks, caps, pens etc) over time, which is cheap and builds loyalty.

Translated with DeepL Translate: The world's most accurate translator (free version)

Airdrop according to the results of the first snapshot without filtering, with an addition for users who pledged continuously. But it must be filtered for airdrop hunters who picked up the airdrop the first time and sold it immediately, and which users did not participate in the pledge. This scenario should be considered reasonable I guess.

1 Like

Hello everyone, thrilled by PSP 2.0 and congratulation to all the contributors that worked on that great proposal!

Here are some of my thinking, concerns and questions about gaming the Trading Boost.

Someone with max ParaBoost Score with 95% refund on gas fees could easily trade millions of dollars in volume in stablecoin pairs loosing only 5% of the gas fees for up to 70% ParaBoost gain.

I know that the wash trading allow/exclude lists aims to prevent that, but how can you conclude that someone, that made, let’s say, one or two 5/6/7 digits trades every once in a while during an epoch is or is not gaming the ParaBoost system?

Beside that, it will require a lot of work and time wasted by the team, analyzing potential Trading/Making boost gamers/cheaters instead of doing productive work on ParaSwap growth.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that’s a really really great idea, but we have to be 100% sure that legitimate stakers will not see their boost diluted by gamers.

Social Escrow, aims to be “Social” :smile: right? But the ones that are going to get the highest ParaBoost Score are going to be professionals like Market Makers and it’s ok because they’re also the ones that are going to generate most of the profits for Paraswap.

Now the question is, do we think that, up to 70% (making) + 70% (Trading) ParaBoost dilution on non professionals is ok or too much? Even though, yes, Market Makers behind ParaSwap Pools wouldn’t get more than 50% Boost with the volume they’re currently executing monthly and that most stakers would easily reach the first 20% boost level, which I also think is going to be gamed by everyone and impossible to be detected/prevented.

Tell me what you think.


I agree about rewarding community members, DAO contributors but I think it should be done with the 20% share of the Redistribution Fees the DAO will get.


regarding fairdrop

first of all i would like to highlight few points which may backfire this program to regain the lost reputation of paraswap.

  1. excluding true users

the true user of paraswap is the one who used the protocol after token launch (psp) they was no motive to sybil the airdrop. and do you really think leaving them would be a fair choice? for sure it will again back-fair the motive and eventually it would turn into a brutal disaster.

  1. ignoring the stakers.

stakers are the true people holding the value of psp. at the time of the initial airdrop, psp airdrop was valued more than 10k $ and yet some people choose to stake it and preserve the value of the token were most of the people dumped which were so called “true users of the protocol” and got airdrop according to the paraswap team. if anyone is liable to receive the airdrop foremost it should be the stakers.

  1. removing sybils via community led program.

it is very unprofessional way and sure method to invite hatred.
already paraswap airdrop 1 is the benchmark for the one most hatred defi airdrops by putting harsh criteria and in the name of sybil removal we all know why the fairdrop is being propsed. and yet the paraswap is reluctant for sybil filters. seriously, its high time that we learn from the most successful airdrop and move to that part in correcting ourselfs . like dydx, ens. we have to learn how to make a healthy community a happy one. in crypto space community is the king and we have to acknowledge it.
4. airdrop 1 recipient who used paraswap after airdrop.

i would like to ask a question which paraswap team. what was the purpose of airdrop? do you really succeed?
the answer is big no.
formation of dao was the motive and dao means people and people were unhappy and hence psp was about 99% down. eventually what i believe was airdrop 1 criteria, most of the recipient were also having the motive of airdrop and was lucky to fit the criteria, how to identify the true user? recipient who still used paraswap after airdrop were the loyal and utmost true user and i firmly request to add them in the fairdrop… i believe there should be a airdrop 2.0 without any sybill mess and fairdrop should be a part of it. and believe me it would just change the narrative of the paraswap and will eventually be counted as one of the most successful action learned from failure.

after more than 5 years in defi space, and bit of experience i know paraswap is a wonderfull project and noting call be 100% right with decisions, but what make a project legend is how we deal with the aftermath.
if the community is happy with my suggestions, we could together, with the paraswap team can make the formation of fairdrop a literal fair one, else things are becoming worse day by day we have to acknowledge it.

1 Like

The thing is im a staker and i used paraswap from last year but we are in a bear market and i did not need any exchange in last month so i should be deleted from airdrop? i think this method of yours is broken.


Here is a draft idea of what could be a “socially oriented” way of attributing Trading/Making ParaBoost according to the amount of sePSP staked (thx to @stikers original idea).

Proposed figures are not the result of extensive research, the goal being to open up a different way of thinking, more inclusive.


First of all, congratulations to the team for the work done.

For my part I think it is important with this new system of sePSP, not to favor exlusively the whale and marketmaker. My experience shows me that often protocols remunerate the big hands and people with less resources are often less well thanked while they may show more loyalty to the protocol.

Concerning the fairdrop I am quite mixed on the subject. Today we see that all the hatred following the airdrop has been reduced with time and we almost don’t hear about it anymore. Is it appropriate to re-launch a new airdrop and take the risk of re-launching a future debate on the way it was done and awake all the resentments if some are excluded again?

Also as mentioned by several people above, if there is to be a new aidrop/fairdrop I will add all the people who stacked the initial airdrop without ever selling it while still using the platform regularly.

In my opinion, these are the people who should be thanked for the confidence they always had in the protocol when the FUD was at its peak and the token lost 99% of its value.

I’m just expressing one opinion among many that needs to be discussed and to move forward on this beautiful general proposal.

Translated with DeepL Translate: The world's most accurate translator (free version)


Gm everyone,

First of all congratulation with the hard work that lead to this proposal, great job!

I mostly agree with everything that has been said.
Here are my thoughts on potential improvements:

Like @enerow & @stikers said I think that current proposed Paraboost model is too much whale friendly and not enough “community” friendly.

Wash trading is super easy by swapping only stablecoins to generate fake volume and earn big boost.
The draft below by Enerow is way more accurate, in the sake of the community.

Regarding the fairdrop, I’m not sure it would be productive.
People would instant dump their tokens, like in any airdrop btw.
However, rewarding those that kept faith by holding or staking $PSP through the bear market would be more efficient. The real, active community should be rewarded, maybe some of those that didn’t get the airdrop last year bought and staked PSP. Those people should be rewarded.

100% agree with @disiaque.eth
Contributors must be rewarded!

I’m not sure if I understood correctly the “Paraswap Accounts part”.

Can the user link several wallets attached to one main account ?

Ex: I own 5 wallets (ledger, hot wallet, multisig, public wallet, private wallet etc)

Can I link my 5 wallets so each trading activity can be linked to my staking PSP account ?
This would be super useful for my case.


Hi there,

I do not have the technical skills to feed the debate, but being a user and older from the beginning, I would still like to participate in my own way.

First of all, I would like to thank all the people who contributed to the elaboration of this proposal. It’s a huge job and obviously it’s going in the right direction. I am delighted to see that Paraswap continues to build and develop its ecosystem.

Then, I’m delighted to see that the community is still so present and so important and talented. The remarks are all richer than each other and the debate is enriching.



The airdrop tokens would be vested (locked) for 1 year.

My bad, idk what to think about this then

Amazing work on this proposal, congrats to everyone involved :fire:

As proposed in the comments, I also think it make sense to split the discussions into several sub proposals, however I wanted to share my thoughts:

I like the idea of incentivizing users to contribute in the PSP liqudity, and it seems like a good boost to start.
However if the community think in the future that the boost is too important (or not enough) and wants to update it, would it be possible, and if yes how complicated would it be ?
Also, the boosted voting power is handled on chain or off chain ?

Very nice to receive ETH or other native tokens as rewards !
An interesting option for the user could be to either claim in native, auto convert in PSP or in BPT 80/20 position ?
We could even add a compound option if there’s an underlying for staked PSP and BPT on Paraswap, as users could receive the underlying directly if they selected the option (like how Beefy distributes their fees, except their autocompound is handled on a vault)

Interesting idea, but I agree that the max boost might be too aggressive. Enerow’s model outlined below seems a better fit to start with.
However, as for the voting boost, can this be updated by the governance if needed and if yes, how ?

How are managed the informations of the linked wallets, and would it make sense to handle it with Sismo Zk badges ?

What’s the point of linking if not to aggregate activity to get a better boost while keeping some infos privates ?

Can you clarify which boost act on reward distribution and which one on voting power ?
From what I understand, the fact of staking BPT will give twice voting power but not twice more fees, and the boosts for trading, pooling and balance boost are only on rewards (not voting power) and distributed in vPSP, but the referal boost is paid in collected fees from the swap, is that correct ?

I don’t think this is necessary as someone choosing to keep his PSP liquid will not vote or receive fees as it’s most likely a speculator, so probably no need to spend PSP for this.

However, it would be very interesting to implement this boost (and the ability to vote) for PSP implemented in other Defi protocols (I’m thinking about APWine rn even if stop the staking will discontinue the IBTs there) but there will probably be some other integrations in the future.

About the fairdrop I agree with the majority that it doesn’t seem necessary to move forward
I’m not fully against it either as the distribution vested over a year with revised criteria can make sense to get back the interest of the users excluded for the first one, but with everything cooking on Paraswap, they will come back anyway at some point imo.

This seems a bit short, maybe 3 epochs is better ?

5 members is the total amount or the amount of team members, and if team, what’s the total amount of members aimed for this committee ?

According to Coingecko, there is 400M PSP in circulation. This would create a 1% Quorum, which is way too low imo.
Something between 5 and 10% seems more appropriate to start with, but the best would be to setup different quorums and duration for each proposal types.
I can work on a proposal draft to harmonize the governance framework if needed.

Good idea, but maybe Emergency proposal is more accurate than express.

Overall, very excited to see so much changes coming and looking forward for the PSP 2.0 launch !


After my first reading of the proposal I thought it was potentially not totally a bad idea, but let’s face it, the debate around the fairdrop (especially on discord) is fading away the real true innovations behind this proposal.

Hate around PSP Failed Airdrop was one of the worst marketing bad buzz of the last cycle, It took almost 1 full year to gradually fade away. Now that paraswap’s fundamentals are finally taking back the lead, why risking it all by re-launching another airdrop that will be controversial no matter what the filtering recipe is.

I think that there are better ways to use the DAO’s treasury to attract and reward news users.


Great idea, we could also incentivize stakers using this “buyback & stake” option with an additional (small) PSP reward.

I also agree, only stakers should be rewarded for their commitment.


Hello and congratulations on the work done.

I understand the interest in favouring sePSP2s but the boost seems sufficient. Why should only those who migrate to sePSP2 receive a full refund of the migration gas costs? I think that all stakers should be able to migrate without cost.

Requiring the claim to be made within two epochs may make the claim unprofitable for small amounts staked according to the gas price. This puts small holders at a disadvantage, especially since only the Ethereum network is available at the moment.
Why the short delay? And why give the protocol a chance to recover them if it is decided in the first instance that the protocol will have 20%?

I totally agree that in addition to encouraging people to use the protocol, we should also bring them back to the DAO, if DAO is still the goal.
I would add to the roles proposed by @disiaque.eth to consider (to a lesser extent) the people who vote for the various proposals.

100% agree, how is it in the interest of the protocol for a user to keep his PSP liquid.
Those who have staked to favour PMM or provision liquidity are rather the ones who should benefit from a boost. If this boost is really necessary.

100% I’ve never been convinced by the usefulness of a new airdrop, fair or not, and unfortunately this topic is taking over the rest of the debate.
As it is announced on twitter, and as a good part of the people stop at the headlines, fairdrop is already expected and will create disappointment whether it is voted or not.
Why shouldn’t the stakers have one too? Why this or that? There will always be dissatisfied people.
It will take some time for this fairdrop to be forgotten.

The work you have done to reorganize the staking system, the $PSP issue and the sePSP are in themselves PSP 2.0 and did not need more for my taste.

Finally, you probably meant six-month (6 epochs) or 3-month (3 epochs), with the new 1 Epoch = 4 weeks rule right ?

I will follow the discussions carefully on this forum which is finally getting some activity again!


I disagree with the fairdrop because it will further devalue the price.

1 Like

To follow up on my first message. Can we imagine a more dynamic Paraswap Boost Score with an exponential function concerning lock time which would be a global boost that could decrease linearly over time. The advantage is to encourage people to lock their tokens for as long as possible by offering an exponentially larger boost.



As mentioned in my first post, I fear that the arbitrary system is being gamed by some actors in the ecosystem. Here is an idea for a formula that I thought of:


Exemple with $1.000 of stkPSP:

Exemple with $1.000.000 :

The aim is to reward those who participate by increasing the difficulty of decreasing the boost while largely rewarding those who participate the most according to their ability to participate. Unlike tiers, which are unfair and arbitrary, a curve makes it possible to be more fair and harmonious.

Below is the projection of an increase or decrease in the value of sePSP relative to a volume x:

I would add that the boost points will be burned linearly over 6 epochs but can be accumulated from one epoch to the next.