A different approach to distributing LXPs that no one is considering

Token Design
1

Hello everyone,

I’d like to share a unique perspective on distributing tokens that I haven’t seen discussed yet.

The incredible success of Hyperliquid TGE is undeniable. One of the key factors behind its success was their limited points system, where a fixed number of points were distributed weekly, and the pool was shared among that week’s participants. This ensured that early and loyal users, who participated when the protocol was less popular (and had fewer participants), were better rewarded and protected from dilution.

I believe Linea could greatly benefit from a similar approach, creating a more equitable distribution system without the need to impose high LXP minimums, which can be unfair to smaller but deserving participants.

My Suggestion

The team could establish a fixed number of LXPs per campaign, based on its relevance.

Example (figurative numbers):

Total fixed LXPs for all campaigns: 1B

Max LXP per user for all campaigns: 7,000 LXPs

1B / 7,000 LXPs = 142,857

Campaign 1:

Max LXPs per user: 1,500

Previous total LXP distribution for this campaign: 100,000,000 LXPs

New fixed distribution: 142,857 * 1,500 = 214,285,500 LXPs

Adjustment per user: 214,285,500 / 100,000,000 = 2.142855

For a user who initially earned 1,000 LXPs in this campaign, their new allocation would be ~2,143 LXPs.

Campaign 2:

Max LXPs per user: 150

Previous total LXP distribution for this campaign: 50,000,000 LXPs

New fixed distribution: 142,857 * 150 = 21,428,550 LXPs

Adjustment per user: 21,428,550 / 50,000,000 = 0.428571

For a user who initially earned 100 LXPs in this campaign, their new allocation would be ~43 LXPs.

As we can see in this two examples, the users in Campaign 1, who participated in the campaign with less competition, benefited and saw their LXPs multiply by 2.14x. Meanwhile, the users in Campaign 2, who participated during a time of high interest, saw their LXPs decrease by 0.42x.

This process would repeat for all campaigns. Since Linea has on-chain data showing how many LXPs were distributed per campaign, implementing this should be feasible.

Advantages of This Strategy

  1. Fair rewards for early adopters: Users who participated during low-interest periods would be better compensated and less affected by dilution.

  2. Inclusive participation: Even smaller participants can receive rewards without requiring high LXP minimums.

Adjustments for IRL Events, Testnet Voyage NFTs, and Champions :

For these categories, a specific allocation could be determined by the team to align with the adjusted LXP distributions from other campaigns.

Example: Testnet Voyage NFTs

Fixed allocation determined by the team: 250,000,000 LXPs

Previous total distribution: 500,000,000 LXPs

Adjustment per user: 500,000,000 / 250,000,000 = 0.5

A user who initially earned 1,000 LXPs from NFTs would now receive 500 LXPs.

LXP-L and On-Chain Activities Distribution

For these categories, my suggestion is:

50% of the airdrop for LXPs

20% for LXP-L holders, based on a tiered ranking system

30% for on-chain activities, such as:

  • Active participation in Linea most engaged communities (NFTs, tokens, etc.)

  • Months of consistent activity

  • Use of VeTokens

  • Metamask Card Users

  • Participation in non-LXP campaigns

  • Months and volume of LP on Linea since the Mainnet launch, not just during the Surge (similar to the zkSync model)

This approach balances fairness, rewards loyalty, and incentivizes broader engagement within the ecosystem.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and feedback!

1 Like