The Paraswap airdrop applied stringent criteria to reward actual users of the product vice airdrop hunters. In applying such a strong filter on eligible wallets, I hypothesize that legitimate users were left out of the initial airdrop, and propose a framework for rewarding “missed” users.
Discussion:
Should users who missed the first airdrop AND continue to use Paraswap in some agreed-upon volume be eligible for a retroactive airdrop?
If yes, what is the rough sizing of that wallet pool?
What are the potential effects of an additional airdrop on $PSP tokenomics and governance of the DAO?
Interesting approach. I think the filters on Polygon could’ve been better, the one that could’ve been improved was the MATIC limit which wasn’t really needed. Now, you have to convince the DAO, not the team regarding point 3
I actually think the filters were fine; it’s a really difficult problem you all were trying to solve.
Potential benefits of a round 2 airdrop from my perspective would be:
Reward active Paraswap users who we can assume weren’t using the product just for the airdrop (since snapshot will be taken after the initial airdrop date and will exclude those already rewarded)
Expand the pool of governance participants
And while I don’t think it should be a primary factor in the DAO’s decision, a 2nd airdrop would likely be good publicity for Paraswap generally, driving additional volume.
Here is the list of addresses who used ParaSwap after Nov 15th JSON Blob | 920247296294404096, they were “excluded” because they didn’t meet the min requirements in terms of MATIC balance. We considered 5$ only at snapshot time (Oct 8th) which makes more sense in Polygon.
That list has 1676 addresses and if we consider 2 tx at least, we end up with ~1200 addresses.
Mr mounir
New airdrop is good but for psp volume it need to come on other chains like bsc,polygan and listing on cex it is obvious and no one can deny it mr mounir.
I sincerely think that redoing an airdrop would give a new wave of hatred or “bad buzz” like: he realizes their mistake and tries to correct it
the price has dropped significantly, they can have the equivalent of the airdrop for 3-4x cheaper
and would have put the “new” and “old” holders / stakers in an unformatable situation to see the coins being “dumped” again by the airdrops while the price begins to stabilize
I agree an outright airdrop might look bad to current token holders that hodl’d, perhaps airdropping something different like a KPI Option in collaboration with UMA could better serve this purpose. We could for example tie the option to a certain metric like total Paraswap volume to encourage their continued use of paraswap, with it being redeemable in about a month or two. it might be a nice surprise to real users that did not receive the airdrop and at the same time help our over all goal of growing volume on the platform. this is just one example but we could aidrop an option on virtually any KPI using UMA.
I’d definitely be in favor of something like this. I think it would likely appease the majority while at the same time incentivizing continued swapping volume. Lets make it happen
I don’t like considering volume as the only KPI. It doesn’t give everyone equal opportunity and it rewards the rich to be even richer!
Maybe a mix of metrics considered in multiple time frames would be nice and result in continuous growth.
Small amount of airdrop would be acceptable but I’m not sure why we should increase selling pressure on $PSP. The users already have benefits from cheaper fees…
Imho, you will never find any ways to make haters stop hating… they will always be back on the topic, saying the first airdrop was crap or that the KPIs are not relevant and eventually asking for a third airdrop. We just got out the first shitstorm, do we really want to risk a new one ? And how could ParaSwap benefit from that new airdrop finally ? I think we now need to move on.
PSP emission is already too high, and we need to reduce it.
Of course, we could figure out a scoped airdrop or a smaller one, but that would indubitably resuscitate all the bad buzz we had. We will then, again, all be speaking of a 3rd airdrop in another 2 months.
I can understand the necessary point of getting involved members in the DAO though.
But for that, I would rather suggest a dedicated budget for active members of the DAO (with priority for the ones who didn’t get anything yet) in a few months from now.
Could a wrappedVestedStakedInSafeModulePsp work better for everyone that was left out?
It gives those users that missed the drop a voice first and if they choose to withdraw at any point until vesting is completed they can do so by forfeiting 50% and the remaining 50% to be shared among SM stakers.
Hi. I would like to add my two cents here. Haters will never stop hating. Agreed but if there is a way to convert those haters into supporters, we can always go down that road.
KPI options which have been proposed can be one of the most fundamental way of adding value and building the community. We will always have free riders and if you demand value from them, half of the problem gets solved right there. KPI options can help to align the community and derive value from everyone who want to be a part. It can help everyone to contribute and become a contributor of the larger cause.
Unfortunately I feel KPI options are highly underrated for the kind of value they bring. The fact that these come at no extra cost should be a no-brainer. Somehow communities tend to think of KPI options as overly complicated when these are most basic and simple to understand. Think of it as a token which gets fulfilled at a certain value at the end of its expiry based on if the underlying metrics are met.
This should be given some serious thought.
Thank you for starting the topic @jake , I think it is very much on the minds of DAO members so it needs to be discussed seriously.
In addition to the points that have already been highlighted by other members, I have two main questions:
What are the concrete objectives of this airdrop? If the objectives put forward are only to increase the volume of the platform (1) and to satisfy the dissatisfied users (2), I fear that they are not a priority for the success of ParaSwap. For the first, the volume of the platform is constantly increasing and does not require any particular incentive (unlike the central theme of liquidity). For the second, it has already been said several times in the form of a proverb: “haters will never stop hating” and I would personally add: “don’t feed the troll”. Nobody wants to see another shitstorm happen… Organizing a new airdrop seems to be a significant risk today.
What is the budget in time and PSP for such an airdrop? My main concern is that this proposal is too expensive in terms of time and our overall budget. If we take the figure of 1200 users as given by @Lup and the cost of 5200 $PSP (which corresponded to the first airdrop tier), this represents a budget of 6.24M $PSP! To give an idea, this amount is higher than the previous liquidity proposals… This would also require a significant mobilization of the dev team which is currently working on urgent topics (multi-chain, staking, etc.)
To keep the debate going, I propose that the members most convinced by the idea of an airdrop (which is not my case) put forward a costed proposal. What PSP budget for what purpose?
If needed, I will of course help to formalize the idea in a form acceptable.
Are you sure the list is exhaustive ? I used it a Loooooong time ago (first time you appeared in le journal du coin) and I definetly bought psp right after the airdrop that I missed and I staked since then. I do not see my address in there.
