Retroactive Reward for genuine users who were ommited in the first airdrop and active DAO participants


Retroactive Reward for genuine Paraswap users who were omitted in the first airdrop and Active DAO participants.

Smart contract development, psp incentives

Unclaimed PSP reward from the first retroactive reward

This proposal aims to address the case of genuine users who were omitted in the retroactive reward because they fail to fulfil the minimum native token condition and active ParaswapDAO members

The attention of the DAO has been brought to the case of genuine users who do not qualify for the initial reward because they fail to fulfil the minimum native token balance condition as part of the criteria set to filter out bots and abusive behaviors aimed at gaming the system. Of all the criteria set for the reward, having a minimum native token (aka gas token) balance of the supported chains may have resulted in filtering out a number of genuine users.

Why should such users be considered? A number of users have the habit of only keeping enough native token (gas token) for transaction fees and nothing other than that. Such users on Polygon may not have 20MATIC or 0.2 BNB on BSC and still transact multiple times.

Omitting such users for failing this condition irrespective of transaction count, transaction volume, and duration of use is not fair and can only result to negative publicity, lose of trust and support of such users and their allies as we have witnessed the last couple of weeks.

The second category of users are active DAO members who have remained supportive with their resources against all odds. Such a loyalty should be rewarded to encourage increased participation in the future.

This proposal aims to reward users in the two mentioned categories an “X” amount of PSP vested over 3 months and to be released in 3 or more instalments.

Qualification Criteria
i. Ommited users in the first retroactive reward who fulfil every condition of the reward except the minimum native token balance condition.

ii. Users who hold, stake, or provide LP for PSP and are active DAO participants.

Who is an active DAO participant? To qualify as an active DAO participant a scoring mechanism shall be put in place such that different activity such as holding or staking a minimum amount of 1000PSP will attract a score. Others include voting, forum discussion, answering of questions on discord, social media marketing, submission of proposal, and specific DAO roles like governance scribe, content producer and evangelist all have a score. A minimum score of 60% of total attainable score shall be used as the benchmark.

A filter shall be applied to exclude multiple linked wallets such that a user can only claim on maximum of 2 wallets.

Why vesting the reward and why intallmental release?
The initial reward witnessed massive sell pressure which resulted in a down trend of PSP. Vesting and installmental release will address the sell pressure. Also, installmental release of reward will encourage some users to delay the claim in an attempt to save on gas fees which will also reduce the sell pressure.

i. Fairness to all.
ii. Regain of disgruntled community members who qualified as genuine users.
iii. Increased DAO participation
iv. Change of public sentiments and narrative to favor Paraswap and PSP.
v. Reward of loyalty to encourage increased participation.

The success of this proposal shall be measured through increased community members vis-a-vis increased holders/stakers count and increased DAO participation.

After implementation, a follow up proposal shall be submitted to market PSP in other to increase the popularity, demand and transaction volume of PSP.

The primary budget of this proposal shall be unclaimed PSP from initial reward (if it is within the control of the DAO. Otherwise, the budget shall be financed from the treasury).

A deadline date shall be set for the unclaimed reward and the leftover at the expiration of the date shall be reallocated to targeted users.

The total claimable Reward “X” shall be calculated based on the total number of unclaimed reward after deadline divided by the total number of qualified users “Y”

7800PSP>= X < 10400PSP

If the amount of unclaimed PSP is not enough for the budget, the DAO shall finance from treasury. In case of excess, the excess PSP shall be returned to the DAO or burned.

If the proposal pass, the Paraswap dev shall need to make smart contract development to reallocate the unclaimed PSP. The team shall also generate the list of qualified users.


This proposal was originally meant to be 2 separate proposals where the first one address the ommited members and the second proposal addresses rewarding active participation in DAO.

However, I decided to merge both ideas in a single proposal for better effect and for the ideas to compliment each other.

That said, I’ll leave the discussion for you all. Thank you for your time.


Thanks for your proposal!

I think it is fair and balanced, well thought out, and it is in the best interests of the PSP.
Improved popularity of Paraswap, increased users, increased stakers and active DAO members.

I am for.


Great idea and Great thinking of vesting the tokens it will encourage users not to sell the tokens instead participate in governance

1 Like

Thank you for taking the time to go through it.

That’s the idea. Reward without the fear of dump.

Hi !

Thanks for this interesting proposal DSeeker!
My opinion is that you are targeting two very different topics here :

  • the first one is airdrop for users who did not meet all conditions. To go further on that, it would be interesting to get tangible figures first (how much would we get from unclaimed airdrop, how much treasury should be added, how much PSP would it be at the end by address …)

  • second topic is more about DAO remuneration, this is very different from airdrop imho and will have to be addressed at some point. I personally think this second topic is very relevant but still early. It is too difficult (for now) to measure long term and regular involvement at this stage. Could be the right time to talk about how to measure this involvment though …


You are absolutely right about this proposal trying to tackle 2 different topics. My initial plan as said in my follow up comment above is to develop both topics into 2 separate ideas. I only merged it considering a few factors and I wanted the rest of the community members to help reshape and develop the idea.

So, I may separate the ideas before the final proposal is submitted if there’s enough interest from the community. Unfortunately, the response has not been encouraging.


thank you for the time spent to form this proposal.

Concerning the users who did not meet all the criteria of the airdrop. Indeed some criteria including the one you mention (number of native tokens in the wallet) could have excluded regular users of the platform.
Probably disappointed, have these users stopped using the platform or not, I don’t know. Would they deserve an airdrop? I don’t know. The term “deserve” is misplaced, for me an airdrop is a mix of research, tool use, and luck! You get it, great, you don’t, too bad, we move on. It’s not something we’re owed.

This airdrop situation seems to me to be a 100% lose-lose situation for ParaSwap:
You do one again, there will always be people who don’t get it and will give you bad publicity (even if your criteria allow for accurate targeting of impacted people). The people who are complaining today may not be the most legitimate ones to do so.
You don’t do it again, but we have already talked on social networks about ongoing research, maybe we will get the WEN again?

Nevertheless, between the plague and the cholera (I don’t know if this expression exists in English but basically between two bad choices), I’m for not re-launching an airdrop.
This topic has negative connotations for the dApp when it has literally given away an astronomical amount of money. In my opinion the negative impact will diminish over time if we don’t revive it ourselves. I’m all for letting it run out of steam at the risk of disappointing (probably already disappointed users who normally wouldn’t have any illusions).

Disclaimer: in all transparency, I started crypto and DeFi at the end of last year, I received the ParaSwap airdrop by chance because my first swap was through a third party app that used PSP and not because I was a loyal user. So I’m maybe not in a good position to give my opinion on this subject (but I do it anyway ( : ).

Regarding DAO compensation, I agree with @CZhead , maybe a bit early.
However, I think your criteria are not bad even if they can be “gamed” (like leaving comments on proposals, etc). First DAO for me so not much experience, can’t wait to see the feedback from others on this.
Do we know how the other DAOs that ParaSwap knows work? (I’m thinking of Paladin, others maybe?)
I saw the open source release of the Demeter bot discord by our Archivist @vanmoortel , maybe this tool could be useful).
Big topic for another day.

I’d agree to separate the two topics when going to proposal. See how you feel about it!
Thanks again for your work, I hope it comes to a conclusion one way or the other.

Sorry for the long answer, summarizing is not my strong suit!


Hey, first of all, thank you for creating this thread with lots of ideas to think about. But if there will be a proposal about this idea on the snapshot, I think it should focus on the on-chain activities rather than social media or discord activities. Staking, holding, and voting can be the main requirements. But answering questions, discord, or other social media participation would lead to negative speculations. Because it’ll be hard to track and can lead to unintentionally unfair consequences.

Edit: By the way, I’m supporting an additional airdrop for the loyal stakers and holders. It was also mentioned on the official Twitter account of Paraswap but it seems like after building the DAO they left the final discussion to the community for further details.


There are already rewards for staking, that’s PSP every two weeks.
I think rewarding DAO, when time will come, should rather be about actual work. Regular activity on discord aiming to help user (for instance) is work (and there are many other forms of work for PS like making proposals … ). If people are gaming that and do work more for PS, fine by me. They will be rewarded more when time will come, which perfectly make sense to me.


You should not discourage, we re in the middle of a market depression, wont last forever … :wink:

1 Like

I’m aware that stakers gets PSP rewards after every epoch but I think that’s not the point of this conversation. But if you implying that people who already getting PSP rewards (stakers and liquidity providers) should not get an additional airdrop (if there will be any) because they are already getting PSP, I don’t think I’ll agree with this idea. Because the stakers and holders who didn’t dump the PSP after the airdrop did their contribution to the project (and still doing). I’m not against the idea of rewarding people who shares their knowledge or who helps other people with taking their time. But as I said earlier if you suggesting an airdrop with a measurement on social media activities it can create unfair consequences or negative speculations. Why? Because it’s hard to measure. Who did the most contribution? On which media platform? Maybe some people didn’t use Discord but they use Reddit or other platforms to share about project developments. Who will track those activities? Wouldn’t it create a negative buzz if you only consider users on Discord? I mean also there are other problems with this idea. You can’t convince people that it was fair. Because you can’t provide the same kind of evidence as on-chain evidence. You can still reward for social media activities though. You can have a reward program rather than an airdrop. If we talk about a rewarding program then we can talk about a gamification system that rewards people for different kinds of contributions. Or we can have a rewarding system with having different levels to reward people who write about the projects (like a writing contest maybe). I read a topic about CMS rewards and I thought it was something to consider even if it is for a small amount of PSP it can create a buzz (People who’ll have a small amount of PSP maybe wouldn’t mind the hold and wait). That’s my take on this additional airdrop idea for loyal users. I respectfully disagree with the idea of excluding stakers but I’m curious to hear more opposite opinions.

Agreeing with this one :100:

The points you are talking about are quite good. There will always be some of them who will not receive it and again a bad impression will be made about PSP. It will surely impact the growth of PSP and its ecosystem so I think it’s a big no to the airdrop for left users. You don’t use a dex for airdrop, you use it for your convenience and to get better prices.

Interesting conversations and brilliant ideas so far on both sides of the argument.

At this stage, I am inclined to separate the two ideas if it’s going to be submitted for vote. I want to agree with the fact that this proposal involves two separate ideas and tries to tackle 2 separate issues and separating the two might be the better option.

Also, we need to understand that not all proposals will get passed. Raising this proposal alone in my opinion suggest that the DAO at least considered the case brought against psp by some concerned users. If the majority vote yes, good and if the DAO vote No, good. I believe that would have fulfilled the responsibility and the subject can finally be laid to rest.


Also, rewarding the active DAO participants or better put rewarding DAO participation is crucial and will be done at some point but again I agree that the timing is not right.

I will work on a second proposal that will address the issue of rewarding DAO participation but it won’t be published untill such a time in the future when it will be more appropriate. The main ideas surrounding the second proposal is already in this proposal but I’ll give it more thoughts and probably come up with more ideas.

Thank you all for your time and contributions.


You are right to formalize this proposal in a structured way because the overwhelming vote against the initial proposal made in haste did not establish the decision of the DAO (nascent at the time).

Whether the answer is yes or no, this new vote (if the research goes that far) would have to endorse the topic.

Hopefully, as many people as possible from the DAO will give their opinion to legitimize the future choice and allow to move on.

Let’s give it some time :hourglass_flowing_sand:


Another remark,
perhaps more dependent on our @Scribes :scroll: (@0xYtocin & @disiaque.eth), is this research topic duplicating this one?

Perhaps it would be good to centralize thinking on the topic of a second airdrop to facilitate discussion?


i participated in paraswap way before airdrop was even talked about but i didnt get the airdrop.
I will admit however that my wallet i used since then was exploited by hackers also and an unsure if they took it or something

either way it was kinda prob good i didnt get it but i used paraswap for more than several tx