Proposal to increase and make early backer rewards immediate. (Or add ALL early backers including Almavest basket 5 to receive airdrop as flight academy and Senior pool have)
Backers funds are locked for 3 years, first line risk and have invested long term.
Rewards should be increased with a reduced vesting period as we have not been able to take advantage of the TGE.
Future backer rewards should not dilute early backer rewards, should be kept seperate.
This will incentivise future backers to see a guaranteed higher allocation of GFI tokens. It will also incentivise backers who have large investments in the USDC backer pools to use their governance rights and reinvest in the upcoming backer pools.
Backers are locking up their funds with trust in the protocol for long periods of time. Perhaps an incentive for backers who receive larger rewards to restake GFI tokens in the Senior pools to further lock liquidity.
Thankyou
Increase backer rewards and make immediate - YES
(added and edited below)
I still have a couple questions if you donât mind clarifying too?
The contract doesnât say anything about an airdrop for early backers like the LP have received? So as important as you say early backers are we have been excluded from this generous incentive?
The backer rewards are calculated upon interest received from.the borrower pools? Not on the amount lent? Is this correct? If so that drags our rewards out over the 3 years we have locked up liquidity?
For example i deposited 10k, If I receive $150 in interest per month this is what my rewards are calculated upon per month, not my initial deposit of 10k and no airdrop for being an early backer in an almavest pool?
Great proposal. Thank you for your action for all backers. Backer took risk for the project, should be rewarded with higher reward at present value basis.
I think increasing rewards for early investors is a rather dangerous idea. Early investor rewards imply more rewards, hence they can significantly affect the market value of tokens. As for the lock-in timing, a great idea might be to relax the given timing and revise the tactics to gradual unlocking (1\64 or other format).
No we just talk about correcting too much inferrior treatment made on backers. We donât give any larger incentive for them more than that they should recieve. Thank you for your comment.
This unfair treatment should be compensated.
How come Our funds are locked and you lock our tokens on top of that. Snr pools are allowed to sell their tokens at the same time withdraw thier funds.
This is probably justified by the fact that you, as an early investor, have more influence on tokenomics and the project as a whole than other participants.
This is exactly what the proposal is about sir. Early liquidity providers received a lucrative airdrop and the backers have not. Backers are the backbone of this protocol and without our money being borrowed and repaid over long periods the token will lose value.
This is simply a proposal to receive our airdrop from beng a participant in any of the previous backer pools.
for payment and rewards for future backer pools aswell as our interest we are happy enough with the rewards on a percentage basis.
it does not make sense for the backbone of the community, those who have funds locked up to have no airdrop and low rewards.
so no my friend, currently we have no influence over tokenomics and are at the whim of your votes to do what is right.
Realise we are the ones invested over a minimum of 3 years so it is in our best interest to keep the token healthy.
Liquidity providers can and will take their funds out as soon as they have claimed their airdrop
I dont understand how people that provided liquidity for two days in december or people that did memes and spammed in discord to earn roles can have it a lot better than people locking their funds for years. Some of us had backed a lot sooner than anyone even heard of flight challenge stuff.
I would totally agree with the reasoning behind this proposal and I was the first to point it out that this is so unfair to Backers. I would like to add some specific numbers here so that instead of proposing a generic â% allocation should be increased for backersâ, I would like to provide some numbers here so that we have a talking point as to what % it should be increased to. Option 1: Because Retroactive Liquidity providers are getting 4% allocation of tokens, to be fair to backers and to treat them equally as LPs, backers retroactive allocation should also be fixed to at least 4%. This is still on a lower end of fairness because backers are taking much more risk with their capital (their capital is the first loss capital), they cannot take out their capital for 3 years (which means they are long term oriented and believe in the protocol much more than LPs) etc. But this at least gives an indication to backers that they are valued as much as LPs and their contribution is not inferior to LPs.
Here, the teamsâ argument is that in dollar terms, backers get much more if they allocate 4% as retroactive rewards and the number of backers are lower when compared to LPs. But that argument is flawed because risk takers are always in small number when compared to non-risk takers. How can you say that because risk takers are smaller in number, we would allocate smaller %? It is like Amazon founder getting just 1% equity and 99% going to Amazon employees just because there are more in number? Isnât it ridiculous? Because Amazon founder took more risk, because he did something which other non-risk takers did not, his risk has to be compensated accordingly. The whole entrepreneurship is based on the formula that risk takers should be rewarded right? How can Goldfinch team think the other way around?
Note: This 4% is purely for retroactive backers just like 4% was allocated purely for retroactive LPs. This 4% shouldnât include backer liquidity mining. We can keep the backer liquidity mining to the existing 2% as there are additional rewards of 3% for backer staking.
This proposal would make it easy to implement as we are keeping everything same except that we are increasing retroactive rewards to 4% and everything else remains the same. This 4% can be unlocked over a range of 0 to 12 months, depending on the contribution amount and earliest contribution date just like LPs. Option 2: If the broader community thinks like what the team thinks (that it is not fair for a small number of backers to get same % of allocation as LPs who are in large numbers, though I do not agree with this reasoning whatsoever), then Backers can take the brunt and reduce their retroactive token allocation to 3% and increase the backer liquidity mining to 3% (instead of the 2% in option 1) so that the present and future backers have an incentive to keep contributing to backer pools and we reduce any hard feelings that LPs or the team might have. It is like taking a small % of loss or saying sorry even though it is not your mistake, to keep the relationship going!
In this scenario, the vesting can be reduced to 0-6 months so that there is some respite to backers in spite of 1% less rewards than LPs.
So, to summarize:
Option 1: Retroactive Backer rewards 4% (same as LPs retroactive rewards) with 0-12 months vesting similar to LPs, 2% backer liquidity mining, 3% backer staking
Option 2: Retroactive backer rewards 3% (25% less than LPs retroactive rewards) with 0-6 months vesting, 3% backer liquidity mining, 3% backer staking
Hopefully these options make sense and the community would vote to keep fairness in the distribution of rewards and sending a signal that the risk takers and long term capital allocators will be treated at least on par with LPs in the present and in the future! Thanks!
Yeah. In addition to the higher risk on Borrower pool than Snr pool, Borrower pool require people to stay with the update of the project much more than Snr pool which opened for a while and easy to deposit. Although theyâre saying backers are important for projeccts, they regard backer is less important than snr pool LP, and even they said backers are already rewarded by 10% higher yeild. So sad
As a backer that did not participate in the LP I totally agree that we should be retroactively dropped tokens as we took on a bigger risk by locking our USDC for years .
I would also add in calculating option 1, the team should consider date of contribution to the pool + amount + BUT ALSO how many pools - I contributed to 2 separate backer pools, each incurred participating in the Due diligence process + gas fees to enter, and that willingness to support MULTIPLE backer pools, again over just a senior pool where 0 work has to be done should be noted
I also think that backers should in fact be rewarded MORE THAN flight academy. Why is the team rewarding people who airdrop farmed for flight academy and then DID NOT EVEN CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROTOCOL, they âlearntâ that knowledge to then not apply anything to the actual backer process
Every single person contributing to a backer pool should be rewarded respectably and moreso then others
