LOL
I already said that there is a 10 times difference between them in ranking.I did not write that they should be rewarded 10 times more.I specifically stated this, but since you are a manipulator and a low lxp owner, all you think about is that your wallets somehow get out of here and your efforts to get the maximum reward 
everyone on the forum realises this.You have completely strange thoughts, my friend.good luck.
Iād really appreciate if you would stop making so many personal accusations.
Dude, you started this first. Iām really sorry.(you said our ideas were stupid.)
āI already said that there is a 10 times difference between them in ranking. I did not write that they should be rewarded 10 times more.ā
I see, perhaps you added that as an edit or I missed it initially. You were editing that response a lot as I was reading it and responding.
Iām warming up to the idea of tiers for greater levels of lxp I just donāt like huge multipliers beyond 2 or 3x personally.
And I did not say stupid, I said silly. It was not meant to be insulting and I apologize if you felt that it was. I thought you were literally equating rank to work/effort. Iām not sure why ārankā in the case of lxp is relevant if you arenāt or why you talked about rank and effort being tied together so much if not. Obviously 7k is more effort than 5k but the rank working out to be 10x higher doesnāt equate to 10x greater effort and you said this yourself. Its more likely around 40 to 50% more effort.
If they want to to tiers though thatās what they choose to do and thatās fine, like I said if they did maybe like a 3k to 5k their lxp is essentially x2 and 5k+ x3 and maybe even they want to do a 7k+ x4. Perhaps this is fine, I donāt know, I canāt say how the community as a whole would react to this, or if it is indeed the most fair thing to do. I think itās within reason though.
I donāt know if you believe in mathematics. If the airdrop is to be successful, then the distribution method must be left to mathematics. Find the best balance between number of players and difficulty for each score
3 Likes
Donāt forget that some people in ranking also received excess lxps.
I think everyone at this point already agree that linea distribution is not healthy for the airdrop, that is why everyone wants a tire system because by default when you apply a tired system and apply minimum threshold with bonus to help active participant qualify, you automatically kill 90% of all the Sybils and reward the community base on efforts. The tired distribution doesnāt have to be dramatic, I believe the team will make a better decision on this base on the distribution.
5 Likes
I agree with the tire system. As for the wrong LXP airdrop, LINEA has a website to check, and the team must have the correct LXP points, so I am not worried about the impact of the wrong points.
I understand you but the dune analysis also calculate the excess lxps in the ranking but the team already addressed the issue that it wonāt count when itās time to measure contribution in the network
Do you know what advantage Linea has over the other L2s that gave away the drop?
Here you can determine with a high degree of probability that the majority of portfolios >6000 lxp are unique users. A lot of industrial sybil farms let go of actionā¦
In linea you invested primarily time. Time cannot be scaled.
Arbitrum, stark or zk did not require such a form of commitment, sometimes and painstaking action.
There you did swaps (2-3 per month) and built volume (a single transaction for a large amount was enough and you already had 50k vol).And these statistics did not give any assurance about the uniqueness of the portfolio.It could be sybil from xx wallet who has a lot of funds$.
Money can always be scaled,time no longerā¦
Here Linea has an incredible opportunity to keep real users with it.
2 Likes
absolutely right my friend, you conveyed my thoughts more briefly and clearly, I totally agree with you
Now I like the mindset, mate. We should not give a chance or slack to sybils with possible feigned altruism and desire to satisfy the dreams of others. It is impossible to make all 1.3 million LXP holders happy. So letās focus on the most involved core of the community, rather than giving pennies to every scoundrel, leaving everyone with an aftertaste
As I said, Dencun and LXP used as main metrics to cut off are MORE THAN ENOUGH, again, MORE THAN ENOUGH, to make the most fair distribution that L2 era has ever seen. No need to create those silly and untransparent criteria because devs had bunch of wallets satisfying them, like āTo be eligible you had to go to the toilet at exactly 13-00 on February 31 with a cup of cappuccino with the Linea logo on itā.
LXP system is already an ideal instrument to value and MEASURE your contribution. Few bonuses of course can be added to leave less positives, thatās it. Dencun + LXP floor = best way to kill sybils and allowing genuine users to get deserved rewards.
1 Like
Thatās why I love LXP system. All your efforts are priced in and nobody can lower your LXP parity holding all other parameters equal
2 Likes
Agree with this but I would say probably more like anyone over about 3000 is very likely assumable to be human, even over around a little over 2k I would say has a pretty high probability as that means they likely had some pre-dencun transactions. Over 4k I would say is pretty definite and I would say over 5k is like 99.9%. I agree but I think those numbers could be lower and still be very certain to be true. Getting even 5k was an absolute slog sometimes and that means you did all 4 voyages and spent plenty of pre-dencun gas on the main net voyage, same with 4k just to a lesser degree.
@thirteen
āAs I said, Dencun and LXP used as main metrics to cut off are MORE THAN ENOUGH, again, MORE THAN ENOUGH, to make the most fair distribution that L2 era has ever seen. No need to create those silly and untransparent criteria because devs had bunch of wallets satisfying them, like āTo be eligible you had to go to the toilet at exactly 13-00 on February 31 with a cup of cappuccino with the Linea logo on itā.ā
LOL. Agree 100%. No silly arbitrary random things necessary.
1 Like
A detailed analysis base on this table with I previously shared with an assumption of 1 billion token to lxp holders
and why the approach is the best, the team can make an adjustment if they find it useful.
Introduction to the Fair Token Distribution Plan
In the evolving landscape of blockchain ecosystems, a fair and transparent token distribution plan is crucial to ensuring long-term community trust and engagement. A well-balanced approach not only rewards participants equitably but also fosters a sense of inclusion and sustainability within the ecosystem. Achieving this balance requires a strategic model that accounts for varying levels of contribution while maintaining fairness across all participant tiers.
This distribution plan leverages a hybrid model, which is the most effective approach for achieving fairness and transparency. The model integrates three key elements: tier-based allocation, proportional distribution within tiers, and gas fee adjustments.
- Tier-Based Allocation: Participants are grouped based on their contribution levels, ensuring structured and organized reward distribution.
- Proportional Distribution Within Tiers: Rewards within each tier are distributed proportionally to better reflect individual efforts without disproportionate advantages.
- Gas Fee Adjustment: Early adopters who faced significantly higher transaction costs are fairly compensated, addressing historical inefficiencies without over-rewarding specific groups.
This model stands out as the most effective because it balances fairness with scalability, rewarding both early supporters and new participants while maintaining an equitable structure. It ensures that all contributors, regardless of their entry point, receive allocations reflective of their efforts, ultimately driving long-term growth and community participation.
By combining structured tiering with proportional allocation and necessary adjustments, this plan sets a new standard for transparent and inclusive token distribution, fostering a healthy and engaged ecosystem.
Topic 1: Designing a Fair Token Distribution for LXP Holders
How should the 1 billion tokens be distributed fairly among LXP holders based on the given table?
Answer:
A tier-based distribution is the most appropriate approach to allocate the tokens fairly while considering the size of each LXP group. Hereās the breakdown:
- Total Tokens Available: 1 billion (1,000,000,000).
- Distribution Plan:
- Tokens are divided into percentage allocations for each LXP tier, ensuring fairness and proportionality based on contributions.
- Higher tiers are rewarded more as their LXP represents greater effort and cost, especially for early participants.
| LXP Tier | Number of Wallets | Share of Tokens (%) | Tokens Allocated |
|---|---|---|---|
< 1,000 |
250,365 | 5% | 50,000,000 |
ā„ 1,000 |
562,817 | 15% | 150,000,000 |
ā„ 2,000 |
232,091 | 20% | 200,000,000 |
ā„ 3,000 |
120,579 | 18% | 180,000,000 |
ā„ 4,000 |
77,664 | 15% | 150,000,000 |
ā„ 5,000 |
32,906 | 10% | 100,000,000 |
ā„ 6,000 |
14,208 | 7% | 70,000,000 |
ā„ 7,000 |
5,264 | 6% | 60,000,000 |
ā„ 8,000 |
1327 | 4% | 40,000,000 |
> It is worth noting that the community wants a minimum threshold of around 1500lxp to qualify
Reason:
1.Achieving 1,500 LXP is relatively straightforward, even for participants who joined late.
2.Completing the last two voyages or engaging extensively in activities within the Linea Park requires minimal effort, time, and gas fees.
3.It automatically kills 90% of bots accounts
Given this accessibility, the token allocation for this group could be reallocated to bonus pools or other initiatives that the team deems more impactful or aligned with the projectās objectives.
Explanation:
- The largest group (ā¤ 1,000 LXP holders) receives a modest share because their contribution is relatively low.
- Higher tiers (e.g., ā„ 6,000 LXP) receive progressively larger token rewards to reflect their higher participation and effort.
- This ensures that rewards align with contribution while preventing an excessive concentration of tokens in very few wallets.
Topic 2: Accounting for High Gas Fees for Early Participants
How should early participants with higher gas fees be compensated?
Answer:
Early participants incurred gas fees that were 80x higher than later users, meaning their cost of earning LXP was significantly greater. To address this:
- Adjust Tokens via Multiplier:
For wallets in ā„ 6,000 LXP tiers, a 1.5x multiplier is applied to their token share to compensate for their high transaction costs.
NOTE:THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE, the team can decide to apply this to x number of transactions or lxps before the upgrade
Example Calculation:
-
A wallet in the
ā„ 6,000 LXPtier initially receives 70,000,000 tokens (7% of the total). After applying the 1.5x multiplier, their adjusted share becomes:
[
Adjusted\ Tokens = 70,000,000 \times 1.5 = 105,000,000
] -
This adjustment ensures fairness while maintaining proportionality.
Analysis:
- Fairness: Compensating for higher gas fees ensures early participants are not disadvantaged.
- Transparency: A clear multiplier factor prevents arbitrary adjustments.
- Proportionality: The multiplier is applied only to relevant tiers, maintaining the integrity of the overall distribution.
Topic 3: Comparing Linear and Tiered Distribution Approaches
Why is a tier-based distribution better than a linear distribution for LXP holders?
Answer:
A linear distribution directly allocates tokens proportional to LXP values across all wallets. However, this approach has several drawbacks when compared to a tier-based model:
| Aspect | Linear Distribution | Tier-Based Distribution |
|---|---|---|
| Fairness | Rewards base LXP holders excessively while neglecting higher tiers. | Provides balanced rewards across all tiers. |
| Inclusivity | high contributors receive negligible tokens. | Ensures all participants receive meaningful rewards. |
| Gas Fee Adjustment | Does not account for early adoptersā higher costs. | Includes a multiplier for early participants. |
| Incentivization | Favors only large contributors. | Encourages participation across all levels. |
Conclusion:
The tier-based model balances inclusivity, fairness, and proportionality by rewarding all participants based on their contribution tier while acknowledging the efforts of high LXP holders and early adopters.
Topic 4: Ensuring Transparency in Token Distribution
How can the distribution be made transparent and easy to verify?
Answer:
-
Public Smart Contract:
- The distribution should be implemented via a publicly verifiable smart contract, ensuring transparency.
-
Documentation:
- Publish the logic behind tier percentages, multipliers, and final allocations.
- Include a detailed report explaining why certain adjustments were made (e.g., high gas fees).
-
Auditing:
- Engage a third-party auditor to verify the token distribution process.
Analysis:
- Transparency builds trust within the community.
- Verification ensures fairness, especially for early participants and large contributors.
- Automation reduces human error and bias in the allocation process.
KEY TAKEAWAY:
The tier-based token distribution with adjustments for early participants ensures a fair, inclusive, and transparent allocation of the 1 billion tokens. By balancing incentives across tiers and compensating for historical disparities, this approach fosters community trust and long-term participation.
More explanation on the Model
A Hybrid Approach: Linear Within Tiers
Yes, the proposed system can indeed incorporate a hybrid approach where a userās LXP determines their tier, and within that tier, token allocation is proportional to the LXP held. This combines the fairness of tier-based distribution with the precision of linear allocation. Letās break it down:
How the Hybrid Model Works:
-
Tier-Based Allocation (Macro-Level):
- The total tokens are first divided into predefined percentages for each tier (as described in the tier table).
- For example, the
ā„ 2,000tier receives 20% of the total tokens (200,000,000 tokens out of 1 billion).
-
Linear Distribution Within Tiers (Micro-Level):
- Within each tier, the tokens allocated to that tier are distributed proportionally based on individual LXP scores.
- For instance, if a wallet holds 5% of the total LXP within their tier, they receive 5% of the tokens allocated to that tier.
Example Calculation:
Letās take the ā„ 2,000 LXP tier as an example:
- Total Tokens for the Tier: 200,000,000
- Total LXP in the Tier: Assume all wallets in this tier collectively hold 10,000,000 LXP.
Another user in the same pool with let say 70,000 lxp will receive 1,400,000
So even tho they are in the same pool they will recieve token linearly based on their LXP
Advantages of the Hybrid Approach:
-
Fairness Across Groups:
- The tier-based system ensures fairness by allocating a set percentage to each tier.
- The linear distribution within tiers rewards users proportionally to their individual contributions.
-
Inclusivity for Small Holders:
- Even users with smaller LXP scores are guaranteed a share based on their tier, but their contribution still matters.
-
Incentivizes High Contribution:
- Larger LXP holders benefit from proportional allocation, motivating who actively engage and earn more LXP.
-
Gas Fee Compensation Factor:
- For early participants, the multiplier adjustment (e.g., 1.5x for higher tiers) can still be applied at the tier level without affecting proportional distribution.
MORE EXPLANATION ON THE MULTIPYERS WITH TOKEN ADJUSTMENTS
using a constant multiplier creates disproportion in the table. Instead, applying a Scaled Proportional Multiplier is the most effective solution to ensure fairness and balance.
Key Eligibility Criteria:
Minimum Requirement:
Only wallets with LXP ā„ 1,500 are eligible for token allocation.
Participants with LXP < 1,500 are not eligible to receive any allocation under this model.
1.5 Multiplier for Early Participants:
If you participated in the ecosystem before the protocol upgrade, a 1.5 multiplier will be applied to your LXP to help you reach the first tier (ā„ 1,500), provided it makes you eligible.
Why This Approach Works:
Fairness to Early Participants:
By applying a 1.5 multiplier (or certain x) for participants prior to the protocol upgrade, we ensure that their efforts and contributions are recognized, helping them enter the first tier starting at ā„ 1,500.
Exclusion of Ineligible Wallets:
Excluding wallets with LXP < 1,500 ensures that the allocation is fair and rewards active participants with meaningful contributions to the ecosystem.
Why This Type of Multiplier is Best:
Balances Rewards Across Tiers:
The tier-specific multiplier ensures that higher tiers receive a fair boost for their efforts without creating disproportionate allocations. By applying a 1.04 multiplier to tiers ā„ 2,000, we provide a modest increase that reflects their additional contributions while maintaining fairness across all tiers.
Recognizes Early Contributions:
The 1.5 multiplier for early participants acknowledges those who supported the protocol before the upgrade, helping them qualify for the first tier and ensuring they are not left out despite historical disadvantages like higher gas fees or limited opportunities.
Acknowledged Active Participation:
By emphasizing the ā„ 1,500 minimum requirement and rewarding consistent efforts, this approach motivates participants to engage more actively with the ecosystem rather than relying solely on minimal contributions.
Transparency and Equity:
The inclusion of multipliers in the table provides clear insight into how adjustments are made. It ensures proportionality while avoiding extreme concentration of tokens in higher tiers or overlooking smaller yet meaningful contributors.
Avoids Disproportionality:
Unlike a constant multiplier, which can disproportionately inflate higher-tier allocations, this tier-specific multiplier creates a gradual and controlled reward structure, maintaining balance within the distribution model.
debates around achieving a fair and transparent token distribution.
LXPL distribution
For LXPL, I believe the most appropriate approach is to reward holders linearly, which aligns with the majorityās preference. However, it would be beneficial to set a cap on rewards for top holders while ensuring a decent base allocation (especially those that supplied liquidity for the 6 months) (not overly excessive). Currently, the limited data on LXPL makes it challenging to provide a robust justification for any specific distribution model.
Additionally, I think it would be a good idea to allocate a small portion of tokens to certain communities that have actively contributed to the projectās growth. However, I strongly recommend that this allocation remains separate from LXP.
Why This Model is Recommended:
This hybrid system is the best of both worlds:
- It avoids the excessive concentration of rewards seen in purely linear models.
- It retains the inclusivity and fairness of tier-based distribution.
- It is transparent, as both the tier allocations and proportional calculations can be publicly audited.
In conclusion, the hybrid approach ensures fairness, inclusivity, and precision, making it an ideal solution for token distribution.
@dfox I will like to hear your feedback on this topic.
I also think the team can make adjustments in any area that need adjustment to achieve a fair and transparent allocation for the community
UPDATE on Sybil list
Now that The team has successfully eliminated most of the Sybil accounts. With the allowance of up to 20 wallets, the implementation of a tiered system now appears to be essential. Congratulations to the team and Nansen on this achievement.
7 Likes
Beautiful workā¦thanks for this detailed and fair analysis
1 Like
It might be a good idea to open this as a new topic.In the meantime you definitely need to examine this recommendation.@dfox
By the way, the maximum lxp is 12k, not 8k, mate. It doesnāt seem fair to melt people with 9k 10k 12k lxp in the same pot.
Besides that, you give a very large amount of tokens to 2k and below. Are you really going to distribute 400 million tokens to people who make so little effort? Thatāll drive the Sybils crazy with joy. @Kanenz The on-chain transactions of people with such low lxp should be monitored and active ones should be rewarded. We donāt want so many tokens going to sybils.
1 Like
Interesting, And a good write up. So are you suggesting a hybrid approach(linear+tiered)?
ie. Once a user is entered into a tier, do they receive tokens from the respective pool proportionally to the LXP held?
As a suggestion, The top tier seems too concentrated(ranges from 8k to 12k). Even though the wallet count is minimal, the work needed to go higher from there was not negligible. You could break that pool into few more tiers.
Good work doing all the math!
4 Likes
This is just a suggestion, the team can decide to apply a minimum lxps for qualification as previously discussed, itās up to the team, Iām just giving a model which I believe will be fair for everyone.
If you checked clearly itās not 400 million but 200 for less than 2000 lxps which represents 15% of the airdrop.
I my opinion you can not conclude that everyone below 2000 is a Sybil even though there is high chance, that is why it will be good for the team to apply let say minimum of 1500 lxp(this is just an example) and give bonus points to make active participants qualify.
2 Likes
Thanks for the compliment and for the question, this will also address the question asked by @Loza and explained why I combined 8k and above in to the same pool due to the number of wallets
A Hybrid Approach: Linear Within Tiers
Yes, the proposed system can indeed incorporate a hybrid approach where a userās LXP determines their tier, and within that tier, token allocation is proportional to the LXP held. This combines the fairness of tier-based distribution with the precision of linear allocation. Letās break it down:
How the Hybrid Model Works:
-
Tier-Based Allocation (Macro-Level):
- The total tokens are first divided into predefined percentages for each tier (as described in the tier table).
- For example, the
ā„ 2,000tier receives 20% of the total tokens (200,000,000 tokens out of 1 billion).
-
Linear Distribution Within Tiers (Micro-Level):
- Within each tier, the tokens allocated to that tier are distributed proportionally based on individual LXP scores.
- For instance, if a wallet holds 5% of the total LXP within their tier, they receive 5% of the tokens allocated to that tier.
Example Calculation:
Letās take the ā„ 2,000 LXP tier as an example:
- Total Tokens for the Tier: 200,000,000
- Total LXP in the Tier: Assume all wallets in this tier collectively hold 10,000,000 LXP.
Another user in the same pool with let say 70,000 lxp will receive 1,400,000
So even tho they are in the same pool they will recieve token linearly based on their LXP
Advantages of the Hybrid Approach:
-
Fairness Across Groups:
- The tier-based system ensures fairness by allocating a set percentage to each tier.
- The linear distribution within tiers rewards users proportionally to their individual contributions.
-
Inclusivity for Small Holders:
- Even users with smaller LXP scores are guaranteed a share based on their tier, but their contribution still matters.
-
Incentivizes High Contribution:
- Larger LXP holders benefit from proportional allocation, motivating who actively engage and earn more LXP.
-
Gas Fee Compensation Factor:
- For early participants, the multiplier adjustment (e.g., 1.5x for higher tiers) can still be applied at the tier level without affecting proportional distribution.
Why This Model is Recommended:
This hybrid system is the best of both worlds:
- It avoids the excessive concentration of rewards seen in purely linear models.
- It retains the inclusivity and fairness of tier-based distribution.
- It is transparent, as both the tier allocations and proportional calculations can be publicly audited.
In conclusion, the hybrid approach ensures fairness, inclusivity, and precision, making it an ideal solution for token distribution.
@dfox I will like to hear your feedback on this topic.
4 Likes
As I mentioned earlier it is left to the team to decide the cut, Iām only making a suggestion. I just want a fair and transparent distribution. I believe that is the essence of this conversation to criticise ideas and find a fair and transparent model.
2 Likes