Proposals 47 & 48 - airdrop

Why dao think that we need it

We need airdrop to increase summary voting rights and if us gov confiscate old dev’s tokens they can not pass malicious proposal with 1000000 votes
Full discussion about airdrop:

What i did
I created two proposals depending on each other with two aridrop options
For both proposals we have equal things - airdrop amount (1000000 torn), airdrop recipients snapshot ( and main airdrop principle - if staker unlock tokens from take he lose unclaimed airdropped tokens or airdropped votes

  1. Proposal 47 - airdrop real tokens with sablier-based contract and stakers can claim part of streamed tokens at any time. Airdrop lasts 180 days and for example if you want to withdraw after 30 days you will receive 1/6 of your airdrop, and you can withdraw again after 2 months and receive another 1/3 etc etc, or you can withdraw after 180 days and receive full amount (but you need to pay gas for every withdrawal). More about sablier -
    This airdrop is in fact real tokens giveaway and stakers can stake airdropped tokens or can just sell it, we can not prevent it, i do not recommend this way if we are trying to solve initial problem

  2. Proposal 48 - airdrop only voting rights without real tokens. All big stakers will receive additional voting rights (virtual tokens) that exist only in governance contract and stakers can not withdraw it and dao can clear airdropped balance and airdrop to next active voters in future proposals so i prefer this solution because it solves initial problem and does not create selling pressure

Why did i say that proposals depending on each other? Bcs voters can vote for one proposal and against another and proposal that will have more “for” votes minus “against” votes will execute and second proposal is not. For example if proposal 47 has 150000 for votes and 70000 against and proposal 48 has 130000 votes for and 20000 votes against, proposal 48 will execute

Code and info

Airdrop recipients (snapshot) for both proposals: - you can call getAirdropRecipients function and get full recipients array, equal to json snapshot in git repo

Proposal 47 code:
Proposal 47 airdrop contract code:
Proposal 47 tests:

Proposal 48 code:
Proposal 48 updated governance impl:
Proposal 48 tests:

Important info for voters
If you against any airdrops just vote against both proposals
If you for one option and against another you can only vote for one proposal or vote for one proposal and against another

If you have any questions feel free to ask here

1 Like

Support 47, oppose 48
Don’t make a mistake, everyone. We can’t both agree

If 47 passes, detailed airdrop collection tutorials need to be published

Votes 47

I love this idea !

Because of the money printing?

I think both ideas are great as they diversify the voting power. I don’t know how existing owners feel about the 1M coins being minted? I assume the value of existing tokens will drop decrease? I guess those who farm airdrops will arrive the second the 47 gets approved :upside_down_face: Makes me wonder how much of it will be bought up by a whale, just so we can face a similar problem.

Im thinking 48, the only reason not to is 0 profit yet paying for gas fees

I don’t support it, but I still insist on my idea that the combustion mechanism must be introduced. 1. Increase the deduction ratio for each relay pledger. 2. 80% of the deducted tokens will be burned, and 20% will be distributed to governance stakers.
The 1 million unsafe tokens in these DAOs were also burned directly.
Only in this way is it fairest to everyone and safest for the project.

On proposal 47: I think the snapshot for airdrop needs to follow the timeline again.
Because those who buy 1000 TORNs at the price of $200-300 differ from but buyers at the price of $1-50 More, but those who hold TORNs early should be given more priority.

  • Buying after TORN at the price of $1-50 in bulk when the airdrop is profitable they will sell out and the TORN price will fall catastrophically.

Are proposals distributed evenly by airdrop snapshot addresses, or proportionally by the number held by each address?

It is best to drop to 0.1, so a 100eth withdrawal will have an 8000torn handling fee. :rofl:

I think airdrop distribution should be based on the number of TORN holds and the holding time if possible.
For example, TORN holding wallets from 2021-2022 will be more airdrop. ← but this seems difficult to do.

Are proposals distributed evenly by airdrop snapshot addresses, or proportionally by the number held by each address?

I felt sad but helpless that my opinions were not being heeded.
Since the starting point is to avoid the risk of the 1 million tokens in the DAO being hijacked and voted maliciously, why not destroy them directly?
If we allocate it like this now, it will only further lower the price. The liquidity is already low, and the continued selling will be even lower. Why should a proposal like this, which will lower the overall value of the project, be put forward? One day in the future, someone may even be able to buy 1 million tokens for $100,000, and all of this will become meaningless.

Stop now, the price says it all. With such low liquidity, the price will definitely fall below $1 or even lower after launch. By then, 1 million tokens may be less than $100,000! Only direct destruction is the best option.

No he is a scammer !

Great, the airdrop proposal didn’t pass. This fully demonstrates that the community is truly decentralized and has high-level governance. Of course, we still have to thank ButterflyEffect for their efforts. Although the proposal did not pass, we still appreciate your hard work!
Finally, please consider introducing a burning system, including the hidden dangers in the DAO vault that belong to the founding team. This is the way to long-term stability. Thank you again for your efforts!

You’re in the news, and every major cryptocurrency website is reporting that you’ve built a backdoor into your proposal.