NEW Proposal for another Airdrop based on FCFS principle

I’m shocked – and really disappointed that this wasn’t taken more into account for the Airdrop. This Airdrop was incredibly anti-climax, showing that we can have a distribution model that reward whales that took a much lower risk than the early adopters aka absolute first risk(s)takers.

First of all, I want to thank the team – and we all should be happy for what was handed out to us for free. I can’t complaint about that fact. But I can complain about something when it feels unfair, and wrong for the beginning of a project. It can’t be more wrong having such few people, or one person to be exact to own that many tokens of the circulating supply. I would never allow it if this was my project.

To my case:

Let me give you some perspective here. Let’s take a degen Uniswap play as an example, since everyone is familiar with that; You have person A holding 10 Ethereum. He spots a ghost listed project that has massive potential and no-one has dared to invest yet because the liquidity is too low and it hasn’t been locked yet. He invests 10 ETH because he believes in the project and are confident that the team knows what they are doing and that their code is SOLID.

The project then does 10x, and suddenly liquidity lock is confirmed and the liquidity has increased alot. Now enters person B, the person holding 200 Ethereum. He has been on the sideline all along, waiting for confirmation about whether or not the project is secure. Now he can finally enter with his 200 ETH. He does so, and the project does another 2x, for a total of 20x.

Person A that took the biggest risk and could potentially lose everything was rewarded with 20x, aka 200 Ethereum, while person B that waited until everything was secure and confirmed was rewarded with a 2x, that also equalled a 200 ETH return.

This is nothing but fair. The person who got in first was rewarded for his early and fearless participation, paving way for others to enter and creating trust, just how it was suppose to be. The first come first serve method has been a way of doing things for a reason. It is the most fair method, hands down – always will.

This was what I was trying to explain in my previous post. We are missing a point system that rewarded the people that was alone staking stETH in the beginning. These people were the person A, that trusted these devs, and paved the way so the other people felt more secure doing it. It took forever for people to really get started with staking. But no, this Airdrop was rewarding later majority rather than early majority. Time didn’t play much of a role here from what I can see. You have to take into account how early you staked. Were you staker number 10? 20? 100? 1000? I’m shocked that this wasn’t one of the main KEY factors for this airdrop.

To the proposal:
My proposal is to reward people with a small portion of the Treasury (much less than what was Airdropped) some kind of function that calculates how much you staked, but also how early you staked in the line, and take a big difference between if you were staker number 10 or 1000. Minus points should’ve been given out to people staking later to begin with.

Imagine going from 1 holder to 1000 holder. The 1000 holder are taking a much lower risk, and in this case the later holders just chipped in a bunch of ETH and was rewarded alot more than the person who dared to stake first, a complete opposite mentality than what is fair. I can’t emphasize this enough. But I have to admit, I don’t have a clear distribution calculation, but I wan’t to take this into account, and was hoping we could discuss on a model that would give some more tokens out fairly to the ones who really paved the way.

What do you guys think?


Agree completely! Seems much more fair. The biggest risk is taken by the early adopters :slight_smile:


well i think they have only distributed 0.4 of the 0.5% that was allocated for the airdrop so funds are obviously still there.
As for your proposal it does seem fair, though my suggestion is to maybe just distribute it equally to all holders before the block limit that are still holding their Steth and haven’t immediately dumped it on the listing.

Maybe give 50% to all Steth holder before the block cutoff and another 50% based on time held.

At least this way you achieve some sort of decentralization of DAO governance.

Though given the way the first airdrop was handled with 75% given to 30 addresses it wouldn’t surprise me if they gave that balance 0.1% to themselves as well.

So i wouldn’t really have much hope here


My take on the matter are that Lido airdrops are there to reward and incentivize behavior that is. good for Lido, short and long term.
Is providing liquidity and staking with Lido good for Lido? Yeah, obviously, proportionally to capital used. 1000 eth staked are 1000 times better for Lido than 1 eth. There can be a debate how exactly staking vs holding vs LP should be weighted and what’s the size of a drop but the fact that benefits for Lido are proportional to employed capital for this are indisputable for me.

Is participation in governance, development etc good for lido? Yes, it is, and it’s not tied to capital but to contribution. That is the area you can shine better than any whale - who often don’t have a lot of attention span these days in DeFi.

Is being first to stake with Lido good for Lido? Yes, but not as much as punching above your net worth with participation in protocol governance and development. This is the area you could make an impact and be appreciated most of all.

Anyway, that’s just my take. I appreciate very much your activity in the community and being vocal and making proposals. I appreciate your eagerness to stake with lido too, but it’s much less important tin my eyes. Can be a factor but I don’t see it as a main and only factor for the reward at all.

That said, there’s not concrete proposals for handling human contributions in Lido. This is the area we need help, it’s difficult to quantify these things.


I think projects gets hacked when there is substantial money to be gained by the hacker. The first airdrop after only 10 days did not guarantee the project was now safe for everyone else to enter. 30 addresses being rewarded most of the 0.5% in LIDO for 10 days of staking is plenty generous. I am not aware of other projects giving out rewards for such a short time commitment. Specially considering that now the reward is the same 0.5% for those depositing over $130,000,000 to provide liquidity. This was not a “ghost listed” project, it involved some of the most respected names in the industry, had plenty of publicity and would not have had any problem at all attracting liquidity given a little more time (days not months).