I totally agree with you on this, they really deceived people that bought those NFTs , Meany people spent thousands of dollars based on the promise that ownership and lxp will be transferred to the buyers, Most likely they will loose their investment, the distribution was unfair and lack transparency.
end of Q1 is good time . for me if neccesery q2 or q3 is ok to
LXP for the Voyage NFT’s stacked in a logarithmic distribution. This meant that you would receive LXP for purchasing new NFT’s but also prevented a handful of whales from getting an outsized portion of LXP.
More info here: Testnet Voyage NFT LXP Drop Is Here — Linea
The premise that users not receive LXP for a third or more NFT is false. I can’t tell if this is serious or an attempt at a FUD campaign. My interpretation from the community was that this decision was mostly positive.
7 Likes
And it’s true. The idea worked out as planned.
2 Likes
Have you personally studied the distribution statistics? Let me tell you how your distribution worked: for the third NFT and beyond, users received nothing, just a symbolic 0.000000001 LXP or something similar. Overall, the distribution was positively received only by scripters who exploited the campaign, farming 1000+ LXP on zero-balance accounts, and by those who never had any interest in the project. Will you also call it FUD that your POH system didn’t work at all, and to pass it, all it took was just three transactions in the Linea network on a completely empty wallet? This is your problem: instead of taking a firm stance against scripters, you neglected users who actually contributed to the project.
Now let’s take a closer look at how this works in practice.
Example 1
User: 0x5883fd07e422e2edfdb48cd25578a531534dbd2e
At the time of the snapshot:
- Alpha: 28
- Beta: 30
- Gamma: 40
- Delta: 25
- Omega: 100
- Total NFTs: 223
Approximate value of all NFTs at the time of the snapshot: $15,000+
Result: This user received the highest amount of LXP, with 6,876 LXP allocated.
Example 2
User: 0x1ad78d2cbe79a5e5cf1dabcc9d25dc01fc4e1dec
At the time of the snapshot:
- Alpha: 95
- Beta: 2
- Gamma: 0
- Delta: 0
- Omega: 0
- Total NFTs: 97
Approximate value of all NFTs at the time of the snapshot: $20,000+
Result: 5,053 LXP allocated.
Example 3
User: 0xe45a3ad0003af6c44b4d486426cae7308ac13fcd
At the time of the snapshot:
- Alpha: 0
- Beta: 0
- Gamma: 0
- Delta: 1,443
- Omega: 1,606
- Total NFTs: 3,049
Approximate value of all NFTs at the time of the snapshot: $40,000+
Result: 658 LXP allocated.
Final Example (4)
Users:
0xaabc22527ace6ddc2c8a957da233f760b9f7c47a0x9cc20ecf4e944f34bdc670b8e7412b818fc918660x8f246d1a8b2fde3943b040fee5ebb3ecc82f7338
At the time of the snapshot:- Alpha: 2
- Beta: 2
- Gamma: 2
- Delta: 2
- Omega: 2
- Total NFTs: 10
Approximate value of all NFTs at the time of the snapshot: $700+
Result: 5,593 LXP allocated.
And by the way, the upper limit you announced, beyond which NFT holders would not be able to receive LXP—7317 LXP—was not reached by a single wallet.
3 Likes
Obviously it’s a bit complicated.
They were told that they would usually get the same score for every 1 nft of the same grade.
(by the team and repeatedly)
But here they didn’t get the points they deserved.
Whale or not, that’s why so many people got these NFTs. I realise this is irreversible, but I’m sure you’ll at least find a way to show how much each LXP is worth on TGE, because if it was the right information people would sell these NFTs and use their money as liquidity in a way that they would earn a lot of LXP-L in return.It does not seem to be a healthy approach to sideline the loyal users of Linea because they are in the minority.
Nobody printed an NFT that didn’t exist. They bought the points of someone who gave up their rights on the secondary market, but for some reason this seems to have been overlooked.as if the people who proved their loyalty were penalised. For example, now that wallets with very good levels of LXP are in the minority, even the possibility of the same thing happening again is frankly a bit scary Anyway, I really trust you and feel you have a great plan and I know you won’t upset people who have been here from the beginning @dfox @weaksweak
4 Likes
Since we’re on this topic, let’s stop hiding behind language aimed at fooling people and openly admit that you decided those who bought NFTs from the market, without participating in the project or spending on network fees, deserve LXP the least. Is that correct? (Even though these were your original terms clearly stated in the official documentation.) Unlike scripters, these people spent real money, which went to those who decided to leave the project.
If you were afraid of pressure from whales who accumulated LXP this way, what stopped you from introducing a linear unlocking mechanism over several years for them?
And no, I’m not trying to spread FUD here. It’s just unrealistic to expect that users will remain loyal after such actions by the project. Calculating the amount of LXP should have been done earlier. LXP for NFTs was promised to be distributed before the first DeFi campaign even began, yet it was only issued a year later.
I agree with you, but the team really seems to be living in a bubble. I won’t write here anymore, I just couldn’t hold back after seeing such responses from a team member.
Please stop using judgemental and heavy language.
This isn’t going to help you in any way. And I must say, it looks rather unattractive.
The important thing here is to explain what you really want to explain with the right language.
1 Like
agree, I don’t understand why he is so harsh and says bad things, and judges others. I feel a bit rude.
You make some fair points: ideally the NFT distribution would have happened much sooner and the communication around stacking was insufficient. We can only accept the mistake and try to learn and improve for the future.
Given the situation, we came up with a solution and the rationale to prevent a small portion of holders receiving an outsized amount of LXP seemed most appropriate given our principle of decentralization. Who’s to say those 1% of holders accumulating NFT’s are loyal users, or fervent speculators? Owning multiple NFTs of the same type did stack up although I understand that a logarithmic approach was never communicated and the frustration for this.
If there is one thing I hope has been obvious from the beginning it is our stand against “scripters” and although POH isn’t perfect, we pioneered the use of POH and it 100% has made a difference against sybil farms.
8 Likes
I like reading you, at least the way you’re objective. Your words really convey your idea of decentralization. With this vision, I’m even more optimistic that Linea will be a success.
Your acknowledgement that there may have been a shortcoming in the LXP management of testnet NFTs demonstrates your real intention to do things right.
Some people find it hard to admit, but if you think hard enough, you’ll come to realize that limiting the number of LXPs for NFT holders was a mandatory necessity, for better decentralization. Many people don’t want to admit it (perhaps because they’ve invested a lot of money), but if they were in your shoes, they’d have reacted the same way.
Now that it’s done, and the shortcomings have been acknowledged, it would be good for everyone to look forward.
To this end, I propose that a percentage (3 to 5% for example) of the tokens linked to LXP holders’ airdorp be reserved for this top 1 or 2% of portfolios, based solely on the number of LXPs held. But this would be vested, with tokens progressively released over a period of up to 1 year (you could even make it a poll, and involve the community in voting).
I think the top 1 or 2% (no more) is right, as these wallets certainly fall within this range. This is justified by two things:
-
although the determination of the number of LXPs was not based on a 1-1 ratio, the more NFTs they had, the higher their LXPs.
-
A true linea supporter wouldn’t have been content to buy only* NFTs, to get LXPs.
Furthermore, rewarding top 1 or 2% LXP holders also has the advantage of rewarding these deserving users, who have incessantly participated in as many quests as possible. It’s recognition for their time and involvement in the development of the project.
For the rest of 95-97% of airdrop, I share the idea of establishing a tier system (minimum 1500 lxp), but with bonuses for people who meet criteria such as seniority, fees spent onchain, activity before dencun, etc.
@dfox hope you will read this proposal
12 Likes
+1
I think that this metric can be used as one of the main ones, but it also needs others + bonuses for participants who live deep in the ecosystem (community and others)
1 Like
This suggestion seems really fair. If the team does this, they will show that they do not forget the loyal users who buy a lot of nft and complete the previous missions, that is, they do not forget the users who do not tie their expectations only to nft. because even without the whale, too many people kept nft and did not get what was promised.
Thus, this resentment will also end.
As you said, it seems unlikely that someone who tries to earn lxp only by taking nft will enter the top 1 and 2 per cent.
This suggestion looks very interesting and good. @dfox Sir, you should definitely consider it.
2 Likes
good suggestion
Excuse me, Declan. You may not want to admit it, but the team failed completely in the distribution of the Testnet LXPs.
If the goal was to prevent some whales from accumulating too many LXPs, why did someone with 5 NFTs of each tier receive the full LXPs, while someone with the same 5 NFTs from the same tier was heavily penalized? What differentiates a person with 1 NFT of each tier from someone who has 10 Omegas? Didn’t both have to purchase them on the secondary market as well? By the logic of “penalizing speculators,” someone with 5 NFTs of each tier is also a speculator, who had to buy 4 NFTs from the market too.
It is inconceivable, indefensible, and highly unfair that someone who spent $700 (A SPECULATOR WHO ALSO BOUGHT FROM THE MARKET) receives 10x more LXPs than someone who spent $40k but had the misfortune of choosing the same tier instead of buying multiple different ones.
This shows that the system Linea created was highly unjust. If the goal was to create a fair system that “penalized” whales, all you had to do was set a low cap, like 2k or 3k LXPs maximum, without penalties for staying within the same tier.
Please, I only want you to answer one single question: Why is someone with 10 NFTs from 5 different tiers considered less of a speculator and more deserving of significant rewards compared to someone with those same 10 NFTs but from the same tier? If you can answer this question, the matter is closed!
Imagine how you would feel if you spent thousands of dollars buying NFTs, had an excellent amount of LXPs before, and suddenly saw hundreds of people surpass you in LXPs despite spending far, far less than you, JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE LUCKY enough to buy NFTs from different tiers, and you didn’t.
Wronged, betrayed, that’s exactly how I felt
LXP should have been given only to those who actually passed the Testnet and there would not have been such questions, just as there would not have been speculation around this topic.
I completely agree. If the team wanted to be even minimally fair, what they should do now to fix the mistake, is cancel the current LXP distribution and redistribute only to the original holders who never sold.
“But that would harm those who bought the NFTs.” Didn’t they already do that? If some people have to be harmed, then harm everyone, at least it would be fair to penalize all buyers, not like they did, where they only penalized those who bought NFTs from the same tier, while others “magically” became deserving.