Proposal #16 - Retroactive airdrop 0.5% LDO to early stETH users

I would like to agree on the suggestion. To keep the rule simple is better IMHO. And in order to avoid empowerment on whales as OMG mentioned, fair distribution to the qualified addresses should be fine.
My idea on the threshold is 0.1 eth or 0.5 eth in order to avoid free-lunch-airdroppers.


I have a little concern because the majority of Airdrop goes to whales.
It would be nice if there was an upper limit (cap).

For my personal situation, I have deposited a relatively large percentage of my assets into stETH, although I don’t have the same financial resources as a whale.

However, I would like to respect the developer’s conclusion. :wink:


i think 0.1 eth would probably be to high of a threshold, remember the goal here is to ensure a fair and wide distribution. dont think we will get much promotional value if distribution is just to a 100-150 wallets. I mean there was significantly less risk in making a trade or 2 on most dexes yet thresholds there are about 10-20$ or so.
i think in our case a threshold of 5-10$ should be sufficient and ensure distibution to atleast 400-500 addresses.

Again this is why i mentioned earlier that a time weight based on time staked is probably a fairer idea.
this way you exclude people who may have minted larger amounts or smaller amounts but have immediately swapped it back to ether via the uniswap pool.
I mean even if you have minted 1 eth but immediately swapped it out a point could be made that this is also just airdrop hunting.

IMO distribution should never be based on amount staked since this just favors whales.


Would people who have staked say 0.1 eth receive 0.1 points according to your numbers? That way smaller stakers would not be left out but would not be rewarded disproportionately either.

Is the date for holding and receiving the extra 0.5 points per eth the cutoff block or one month after genesis? I believe one month would be more appropriate because if we take the cutoff block then someone who deposited say 300eth just before the cutoff but sold shortly after would receive their full airdrop amount while someone who deposited 100 eth just after genesis and is still holding would receive three times less, even though they have taken on a much higher risk. So having a period of one month evens this out a little.

I concur with others in that I think for marketing and adoption purposes, the proposal should consider setting up a new vote for a second airdrop with a future cutoff block. The number of people eligible for this airdrop is fairly small. A future airdrop with parameters tbc by the DAO after the cutoff date would be good for getting more people interested in staking with Lido.


I don’t think airdropping to the whales proportionally is a bad thing. The risk takers bear and value of their contribution to Lido, in absolute value, is directly proportional to Eth amount. And we can’t judge subjective risk from pseudonymous onchain data especially because someone obviously already tried to game the system.


I have doubts about how to distribute whales in an advantageous way, so I think this simple method is fine. Obviously it’s not good for a small group to own a lot


@vsh I’m missing the fact that you are not taking TIME into account here. There is a big difference between person A who staked 10 ETH at launch VS person B who staked 10 ETH the day or week after launch.

There should be some way to calculate your % share of circulating supply historically and taking this into account. Or just the fact how long you have staked and some way of rewarding the people who got in earlier than others. The FACT is the later you staked the more secure you felt doing it, the less risk were taken in my opinion.

To be honest, first come first served method is just as relevant here and should be a factor taken into account.


Have to strongly disagree here. While proportional distribution based on amount staked is fair, this wouldn’t really be helpful for the purpose of bootstrapping governance. Large concentrations of tokens in a few wallets will almost certainly lead to dumping nor will it have any promotional for LIDO.
I would much rather have wide distribution even if it mean giving airdrops to those zero eth addresses.

Again this why time weight is the best option since it rewards people based on how long they have supported the protocol.


@vsh has implemented the proposal


In this draft idea of token allocations, only top 5 addresses would receive 64% of tokens…
Don’t all of you think this allocation would prevent sound growth of Lido DAO?


Hope they have considered the whale cap proposed to have a more decentralized initial governance.

It’s ok for those who contributed most to get a proportional reward but as I feared less than 10 address pretty much control the entire pie initially.

However I looked at the addresses that staked and is difficult to not have this disparity when one deposit 1k eth and most not even 3.


I saw that voting had gotten started? I wholeheartedly agree with VSH’s comment on the proposed cutoff being arbitrary and made it a point to get started early and prior to the new year, but would appear to completely miss it by one day. Some/any time-weight would make it far more palatable, especially for people that actually want to be involved. Treating this as a one-done would be an absolute shame.


having read through some of the numbers it seems that airdrop is largely gonna be in favor of whales. With a handful of address gaining 70% of the supply, which is very disappointing form a governance point of view.


So this is one of the unfair airdrops I’ve seen.

From the list on the github, I see that;

3.796.000,00 LDO (which is %75 of the total airdrop) distributed to only 35 account

more shocking is

around 2.900.000 LDO (which is ~%60 of the total airdrop) distributed to 8 account.

Do you call this fair? This is ridicilous!

1 Like

yea absolutely ridiculous, DAO has decided to airdrop to whales and likely other DAO members while putting up a facade of an airdrop for the buzz value, or to create an illusion of decentralization.

1 Like

Yes agree, makes no sense :thinking::thinking::triumph::triumph:

1 Like