[SEP #5] Redistributing Unredeemed Tokens From User Airdrop Allocation

[theobtl]

It seems this proposal has come quite far.

@Billion

Totally agree with @Daniel , the delays of votes and discussions are already long enough and what he suggests is unanimous and proposes a significant saving of time.

There is a point to keeping this proposal simple and not delay the process further. It’s just: I agree with others that we should make sure that an oversimplification of this proposal does not cause unnecessary delays elsewhere.

I’d also say that the latest revision is not unanimously supported, as it’s leaving out other options. That includes extending the claim period (be that instead or in parallel to this proposal), but also others like rewarding users on Gnosis Chain and other L2s.

@rimeissner

Personally I find it quite interesting that the focus of this SEP is to allocate more tokens to the users that already have tokens (which is ok, as it is rewarding active participation to some extend), rather than checking how the unredeemened tokens can be distributed further.

As it stands, the final Snapshot vote would be as follows:

• Option A: Use all unredeemed tokens and distribute them proportionately to all those who previously redeemed their allocated tokens
• Option B: Use 1/2 of all unredeemed tokens for the aforementioned cause
• Option C: Use 2/3 of all unredeemed tokens for the aforementioned cause
• Abstain
• Make no changes

The motivation for that seems to be:

@Daniel

I am not an opponent of extending the claim period, in fact I’m pretty neutral on this, and in the event of a vote, I would almost certainly abstain or vote in favor of it. However, we do need to talk about whether or not it’s worth delaying voting on redistributing tokens for what might be 3 months […] Only after that we could vote on redistributing tokens

I don’t think these initiatives necessarily depend on another and cannot be rolled out in parallel, if we come up with specific implementations and align them. This proposal just had to define its implementation (e.g., the amount of the 32M tokens used) and include options on which alternatives we should explore in parallel. That should be feasible, shouldn’t it?

That way, this proposal can still focus on redistributing to those who redeemed while it’s also a signal for us all what else to do (or not to do) in a more time-efficient manner:

@Melodic_Platypus

Your points on time management also brings up the issue of when these ideas would be rolled out. So, I see four potential use cases brought up here for the unclaimed tokens which if done one after another would take more than a year to conclude. Rather than focus on one us case like redistribute, lets focus on everything and prioritize the ones that are more important.

@CaptainTee

I’m in agreement with @Melodic_Platypus as regard finalizing all the proposed options in a single proposal rather than wasting time seperating the options to different proposals.

Let’s say, someone wants to redistribute unredeemed tokens to those who claimed, but also wants to extend the claim period in parallel.

• they might vote “make no changes” (=No) because they think the claim period should be extended first
• they might vote “abstain” because they’re for the proposal, but also for having clarity on the claim period and choose to vote neither for nor against it
• they might vote “B” or “C” to start redistributing unredeemed tokens to those who claimed, and work on extending the claim period separately

Unfortunately, we’ll only see the quantitative results of the final Snapshot vote, not the Why behind each vote. (Yes, you can add a comment in Snapshot, but very few do so and that had to be analysed manually.) Based on the result of the vote alone, it would be impossible at scale to tell which preference exactly is behind each voter in relation to other options. If you’re supporting this proposal, the best case scenario may be any of A-C, giving you clarity on redistributing to those who claimed. But you’d start fresh with exploring other options. The worst case scenario for proponents of this proposal would be “Make no changes” because we wouldn’t know whether people are decisively against redistributing unredeemed tokens to those who claimed, or generally for it but want clarity on other options, too.

So I’d join @Melodic_Platypus and @CaptainTee and ask:

Wouldn’t it be a low-hanging fruit to make the vote more meaningful and informative by including at least one more option to accounts for alternative measures?