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.
9 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!
1 Like
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.
In general, I don’t see a problem with selling. Why can’t someone sell their reward? Well, going deeper, it turns out that testnetters got their real reward by selling NFTs or receiving LXP for them
Did you read what I wrote? Redistribute the LXPs ONLY TO THOSE WHO NEVER SOLD. Those who sold will, of course, not receive LXPs, they already had their monetary reward when they sold.
Don’t you know that the token is soul-bound?
Of course, they can’t remove the LXPs from your wallet, but they can mark them and not count them during the TGE, just as they’re likely to do with the LXPs they overallocated to some wallets in Linea Park. Doing the same with the LXP drop in the testnet NFTs, wouldn’t be anything unique or overly complicated.
I don’t know if you’ve read the above, but I tried to make a suggestion regarding Testnet’s massive NFT buyers. The proposal was to distribute 95% of the airdrop to everyone and reserve 5% of the airdrop only for the top 1 or 2%, with gradual vesting and unlocking, up to a year (I had my doubts about the team reading us, but I’m glad to see declan fox @dfox read and liked this proposal).
Honestly, it’s getting a bit cumbersome to put this back on the table every time. It’s easy to blame everything on the team, but at some point you have to look at things with a clear head. The NFTs were proof of the effort made to participate in Testnet.
Buying dozens of them shows just how greedy we humans are.
Before the distribution, the team had never said that the airdrop would be based solely on the number of LXPs held.
I mean they could well have used the number of NFTs again just as multipliers ( ie 2000 lxp =1,2 ; 3000 lxp= 1,5 5000 lxp =2; 6000 lxp =3, lxp≥6000 = 4).
The truth is that we will only be entitled to as much as the team wants to give us.
So the question I’m going to ask you is this: do you want to have 20k+ LXP which will be useless, or on the contrary 5k+ lxp which will represent the maximum allocation?
For the record, I too had to buy NFTs on the secondary market.
But I’ve come to understand the team’s vision.
For the record, I too had to buy NFTs on the secondary market. But I’ve come to understand the team’s vision.
If you’re a real fan, my proposal will certainly suit you.
If you’re not, trying to blame everyone else, trying to redefine the rules to suit yourself, is just a manifestation of greed.
And in my opinion that’s not a good thing, especially for a growing community like Linea.
The forum has been set up to discuss various topics relating to the Linea ecosystem. Apart from complaining about the distribution of LXPs (which has already been done many times), let’s try to discuss other aspects. If the team makes an effort to read us, it’s precisely to try and please as many of us as possible.
As well as having completed as many quests as possible, I’ve also been running a node on Linea for over a year (with no rewards announced so far, and I don’t even know if there will be any).
Do you really think that having bought dozens of NFTs on the secondary market makes you a better contributor to the ecosystem than I am?
Let’s learn to see the bigger picture, not just the tip of our nose.
Let’s make suggestions, instead of blaming everything on someone else.
Have a great day.
I guess stability and consistency are much more important for top tier teams than satisfying the desires of the minority. The decisions has already been made, trying to twitch is the first sign of weakness and uncertainty in team’s actions, team’s ideology.
I understand your worries perfectly well, but no one forced you to buy anything. In our life, any adventure is accompanied by risks and accompanying rewards. You knew the risks perfectly well, and you took them for sure to extract benefits in the future. You expected income, but received losses. The problem lies not only in risk management, but also in greed, you overinvested. If you had invested 1% of your fortune in this adventure with the aim of taking some profit in the future, then if you were wrong, you would not have lost so much and would not be worried as much as for now. But judging by your statements, you overinvested, which led to a logical result. I am not writing this to denigrate you or offend you, I myself have been through this more than once, my friend, and I can only say that in such situations we should consider only ourselves to be guilty, without shifting responsibility to the team. The team gave you opportunities, but it’s you the person who chose the degree of risk and greed yourself, let’s be honest with ourselves.
I hope despite the fact you received a small amount of LXP relative to money invested in NFTs due to logarithmic distribution, that you will be rewarded well
1 Like
That’s what I’m saying all the time. Many people don’t understand the market mechanism.
There are those who produce a thing, gave it a fair assessment in relation to their efforts and the time spent, and offered this price to interested parties. On the other hand, another person, who considered these efforts and time justified for him, offered his price. This is where the equilibrium appears. Otherwise, we would not have volumes and sales on the NFT market. The person who sold the NFT has already received a reward in the form of money spent by the person who bought the NFT. These are normal market relations, when one creates a product and receives money for the work, and the other buys this final product.
That is why I do not like lobbyists who put forward the idea of rewarding those who initially had an NFT, but they sold it. This sounds extremely stupid and biased. Why should a person who sold the results of his work receive something on top, if he himself assessed his work and himself put it up for sale, and another person who considered the price fair bought the results of his work.
You are right!
Besides, there is someone who spends around 40 thousand dollars, buys nft and has 3k lxp as a result. Is this man’s crime to buy nft?
So I’ll say that. Please stop lobbying for past things.
It’s not about “satisfying the desires of the minority,” it’s about being fair and correct. If your argument is to favor the majorities and minorities don’t matter, then I have an even better idea. How about distributing all of J Lubin money across the Linea community (since he’s a billionaire big whale)? I bet most people would love that. Whether it’s fair and correct for him doesn’t matter, what’s most important is that the community is happy.
Not everything is about to “please the majority”, where are your concepts of morality and justice?
Reversing a wrong decision isn’t a sign of weakness, on the contrary, it’s a sign of humility and strength. The strongest people accept their mistakes, correct them, and adapt quickly. The weakest are too proud to fix their mistakes and go all the way to the bottom with them.
I have been in this market for a long time, I knew perfectly well what could happen. If the team had imposed a low LXP limit, was ok. I would’ve been severely disadvantaged, but I could have understood the decision.
But building a system where someone who invested far less than I did, earned 10x more LXPs and a lot of them for sure, overtook me in the LXP ranking, is an unprecedented injustice.
All of you love using “greed” as an argument, please explain to me why someone who bought 5 NFTs of the same tier is greedier than someone who bought 5 of different tiers? Because for the Linea team, it’s severely different.
Any solution that tries to remedy the great injustice of the NFTs drop is something I naturally agree with, so I support your idea, of course.
I didn’t just complain, please read my messages further below. I suggested canceling the drop that has already been done. It’s easy for the team to do this, they just need to mark the distributed LXPs and not consider them in the airdrop. The team will already have to do this with some wallets that mistakenly received 2x LXPs from Linea Park.
They could take a new snapshot and distribute LXPs only to holders who received the NFTs from their testnet activities and never sold.