The Unclaimed Airdrop: Decide the Fate of These Tokens Now

Community
49

No, community members who step up and make meaningful contributions could be rewarded from the community pool.

“For over six years, contributors have developed meaningful innovations and made substantial efforts to build the Tari protocol from the ground up. 4% of the initial XTM supply is being set aside to reward people for their contributions to the development of the Tari network.”

It’s very clear what those coins are intended for. Or are we going to issue retroactive bounties for 8 years worth of work and then make our current Tari Labs contributors submit bounty requests (which they would then be responsible for approving themselves - because they’re currently the only core developers qualified to help administer the code bounties) for every single PR they submit?

“5% of the XTM supply has been set aside for incentive programs to encourage and reward people for their engagement within the Tari community.”

That’s what bounties are. The bounty program is literally an incentive program to encourage community participation in Tari development.

I am not the one wanting to redirect the unclaimed allocation. It was already stated, many months ago in the Tari Show, that it was going to be used for bounties. Now people want to change it and give it to themselves (lol). Everyone voting to burn or airdrop are the ones trying to redirect the funds.
Why didn’t we have this discussion months ago? Could it be that people weren’t actually paying attention and engaging with the community when this came up originally? And we should reward that apathy and inattention with free money?

BTW: “D) No Obligation: Tari Labs has no obligation to provide any rewards or benefits in connection with the Program, even if participants have accrued a certain amount of rewards. Tari Labs reserves the right to withhold or revoke rewards without consequences.”

The airdrop was never even guaranteed to begin with. It was a nice bonus Tari Labs decided to give the community. Those were the terms everyone agreed to. I don’t understand why so many feel entitled to those funds.

50

@kinkajou, Your tone here is very authoritative for what is simply a community discussion. I think you should take a moment to consider how you are responding to people. Putting your foot down and declaring what is or is not reasonable does not help the discussion.

As I said, I do not currently have a strong position, but I disagree with several points. You say the contributor allocation is clear, but it is not clear how those tokens have actually been allocated, what remains, or how recent departures affect that pool. I am not suggesting past contributors should have to reapply for their work. I am asking for the transparency you imply already exists, when in reality we have little beyond that paragraph.

What may have been stated on the Tari Show months ago is also not the final word, particularly given the introduction of the Council and the project’s new direction. Everything should be open for discussion without you dictating which views are legitimate. I suggest reflecting on both that and the way you are approaching these conversations more generally.

1 Like
51

An authoritarian would be advocating to give themselves an airdrop, or take coins promised to contributors and give them to the community instead.

I would hope my tone comes across as more “disappointed by the extreme short-term self interest being exhibited by a subsection of community members”. Because that’s what I am.
I am disappointed that so many in the community would sacrifice the long-term health of the project for a (maybe) temporary price increase or a few extra dollars in their pocket.

I disagree that everything should be up for discussion. Are we changing the emission schedule? You just suggested taking money from contributors, where does it stop? Is it okay to be changing the core tokenomics at will like this?

It’s my view that some things are a hard line. Surely my view on that is equally legitimate. You wouldn’t ever hear a Bitcoiner suggesting raising the 21m supply or switching to PoS. That would be unreasonable.

52

You wouldn’t ever hear a Bitcoiner suggesting raising the 21m supply or switching to PoS. That would be unreasonable.

This perfectly captures what’s wrong with attempts to squash discussion that doesn’t meet your personal framing of what is reasonable. There are legitimate arguments for raising Bitcoin’s supply, views shared by some of the most prominent Bitcoiners.
Examples:

https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary

https://medium.com/%40twobitidiot/the-21mm-btc-soft-cap-71e14cd09946

2 Likes
53

Views overwhelmingly, and violently, rejected by the vast majority of Bitcoiners (noted in the article you shared), which would fragment the network and destroy the community if implemented. I would like to avoid that with Tari.

Disagreeing is not squashing your discussion. I just happen to see these rules as far more rigid/consequential than you. And that’s fine.

54

Jumping in since things are heating up a bit.

Honestly the emotion in these discussions is good, it means the CTO is working :))

But @kinkajou I’ve gotta disagree with you on one thing. You said not everything’s up for discussion. I think it is. That’s literally why the CTO happened. If we start fencing off topics as untouchable before there’s even a proposal on the table, then what are we doing here? Maybe the hard lines you’re drawing end up being right. But that should be where we land after the debate, not where we shut it down.

And yeah, I’m with @joseph on the tone thing. A few times in here stuff’s been called unreasonable before anyone’s even put a real proposal forward. I don’t think that’s on purpose, but it does read that way, and it makes people not want to speak up. We can all have strong views (I definitely do) without telling the other side their view doesn’t count … or dismissed as ‘shouting’

To be clear none of this is a shot at anyone… i encourage pushback. I just think a proposal’s only worth anything if it survives people poking holes in it, not if we decide up front which arguments are allowed.

So let’s keep it open and let the case with majority backing win. That’s the whole point.

2 Likes
55

Lets first get an audit of premine.

I think people are just upset because unclaimed airdrop is not going to be an airdrop in the future “If I can’t have it, then no one can”.

Airdrop needs to go to community and that’s a fact. It’s not necessarily, that all 400mil will go towards bounties. Half can go towards bounties, half towards airdrop to celebrate cake wallet ie.

Nothing is set in stone, provide solutions.

1 Like
56

Agreed. The council is waiting on a team member from labs with the right access to assemble a report right now so we can figure out where the accounts currently stand and can start assembling a budget. Said person should be back from vacation soon.

Everything is up for discussion, in the sense it can be talked about. Some discussions are going to be short and come down to ‘doing that would break promises, so we’re not doing it,’ or ‘things would have to be very desperate to even consider it, and we’re not desperate, so let’s not consider it.’

I can tell you that I won’t vote for any proposal that doesn’t have the tokens from the airdrop going to community, as that’s a promise we need to keep. If you want to make a proposal about how to use those community tokens, I’m willing to consider it, but I’m very skeptical of plans that either are ‘burn a bunch of tokens’ or ‘give a bunch of extra tokens away.’

I’d suggest waiting until we have the accounting, though, as you might have different feelings on how those tokens should be used in light of that information. I don’t think I can make any decision until I have said report, personally.

4 Likes
57

Yep, I agree @Fox . Shouldn’t burn them if that breaks promises. I didn’t realize that language was already out there.

I think maybe something similar to a grant system like MAGIC is for Monero could be a good way to use at least some of the unclaimed tokens.

2 Likes
58

BURN THEM! They had their chance to claim them.

1 Like
59

Everyone seems to forget that there is “9% for infrastructure and grants” and no one is talking about it.

That 9% and community allocation could be technically merged.

Council wages and bounties could fall under “infrastructure and grants”.

Having grants like monero CSS is probably safest bet.

Throwing money at devs for their potential “experimental projects” is high risk with a small chance of benefit for the protocol. Look at Atom ecosystem, they went a bit too far with grants and got milked dry.

1 Like
60

As already informed by @kinkajou. The community allocation is being actively used to fund bounty and council payments. I think audit should be a priority.

3 Likes
61

Unclaimed Airdrop: A Deal That Hears Everyone

This has been one of the most engaged discussions this forum has hosted. 300+ views, 50+ engagements (the highest on the forum), and a lively debate across X, Telegram, Discord and Bluesky. That alone tells us something: the community wants a say in what happens to these tokens. That’s the CTO working.

So let me bring it together, and put a concrete proposal on the table.

First, where the community actually stands.

Setting aside the burn-vs-deploy debate, one thing is near-universal: 98% of respondents want these tokens given a deliberate, intentional fate, not left to drift undirected. That’s the real mandate here. The disagreement was only ever about the mechanism.

On the mechanism, a clear majority leaned toward a burn. But I’ve listened to every angle raised, on the forum and off it, and my own position has moved.

I’ll be honest: I opened this arguing to burn them all. I’ve since heard strong, good-faith cases from people I respect, for keeping tokens in the community’s hands, for funding builders, for honouring commitments. So I’m not proposing what I walked in with. I’m proposing what I believe genuinely caters to the most people. It won’t be perfect. No compromise is. But it hears everyone out, and that’s the point.

The Proposal (a hybrid):

Pending the audit the Council has already flagged, and with all figures conditional on it, I propose the unclaimed allocation is directed as follows:

  1. 25% — Burn.
    Honours the clear majority who voted for it. On the “this breaks a promise” concern: the airdrop page says unclaimed tokens return to the community bucket, and this proposal honours that. 75% stays firmly in community hands. The 25% burn isn’t tokens leaving for an outside interest, it’s the community applying a portion of its own allocation for the benefit of every holder. That’s a decision the community is entitled to make.

  2. ~20% — Council & Operations budget.
    The reality is these tokens are already partly funding council and bounty payments. This formalises that, gives the Council a transparent working budget, and keeps the project running. No surprises, fully accounted for.

  3. ~35% — Targeted bounties & ecosystem grants.
    The largest share, because it’s what the most voices converged on. A disciplined, MAGIC/CCS-style program, gated behind the audit and proper quality checks, so we fund real contribution and avoid the “grant-milking” that’s sunk other ecosystems. This is how we actually grow Tari.

One idea worth the Council keeping in mind here: a YAT → Ootle migration incentive, rewarding YAT holders who bridge from ETH onto the Tari L2. It would seed early Ootle activity and bring an existing community onto the network. Raised by YAT holders, and a natural fit once the Ootle is live. Not a committed allocation, just flagged as a strong candidate for how part of this bucket could be deployed.

  1. ~20% — Strategic reserve.
    Held for liquidity and listing opportunities, the direction ~22% of the vote pointed to, and a recurring ask from holders wanting Tari on a top-tier venue. Deployed only through a future, specific, ratified proposal.

Nothing here is final until the accounting is in. These are ratios, not amounts.

Two things to clarify alongside the audit: how a burn interacts with the tail emission and the throttle to 21B (if the effect is only symbolic, that share redirects to the other buckets), and how we execute the burn transparently and without bottlenecks. We decide with the facts in front of us.

On process:

The X poll was a temperature check, not a verdict. I want to be direct about that, because it’s a fair critique. This decision belongs here, on the forum, ratified properly, then taken to the Council. So once we’ve refined this together, I’ll put it to a formal forum vote. If it passes, it goes to the Council with a clear community mandate behind it.

A request to the Council:

Don’t auto-discredit anything. Follow the community mandate, that’s the whole premise of a CTO. The Council should be the enabler, not the gatekeeper. Let’s have a productive back and forth and make a deal that works for everyone.

Let’s refine it, vote on it, and give these tokens the deliberate fate the community is asking for.

Okz

7 Likes
62

Hi @Okz !

This more formalized proposal looks much more reasonable to me and makes much more sense. As you mentioned, we’ll need to take a look at the audit together to see what we discover, and I’m hoping we’ll have that out soon, and then can discuss the specifics more in full. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
63

Looks like a win-win solution.

1 Like
64

Incentivize the 400 million tokens to all yat owners who transfer their yats from ethereum → tari L2 when ready!!

No burning :no_entry: it’s stupid

2 Likes
65

The proposal outlines consideration for Yat holders … the burn is just popular mandate tbh

66

Hey @Fox @kinkajou … following up from the show. Could you let us know when the Council receives the accounting this week?

Once it’s in, the Council can either move forward with the proposal as it stands, or come back with a counter built on the ideas already on the table, and we take it from there.

Making progress :turtle:

2 Likes
67

Yep, will let you know!

1 Like
68

They literally come from the unclaimed airdrop allocation. Still other coin in that community chest to argue about later.

The airdrop was incredibly disappointing to all community members. Price chat was prohibited on tari chats so I’ll let you know now that the whining about price was because the price was so low that people were paying more for power than even getting close to covering costs of running tari universe.

So yeah- that “very little” work was thousands of dollars for some and months participating.

This was an idea to repair that trust in the network. You also missed the whole last point of my claim that this should be used to get some hype back into the project and see if we can get more onboard. I would not suggest any payouts for this to happen until l2 launches and see if that helps natural growth.

Whatever happens tho the burn has to be the most foolish option but the cleanest, most fair option would be to return the coins from the airdrop to the remaining people left engaging in the airdrop. They are the community and they have completed the work required for them.