The idea of taking in account IN and HOLD time for the airdrop to kick the governance is great. However I would suggest to have a max cap for the airdrop to have a more distributed airdrop and so initial governance.
I understand that big depositor are vital for lido.fi and someone may say that having a max cap disincentive big deposit. Well this isn’t the case since this information is given after not before, same as minimum deposit required.
If the goal of this airdrop isn’t only about rewarding but kickstarting the governance this is something to think about.
To make it short:
IN - regard when one took the risk and deposited, HOLD - regard how long one maintained the position, AMOUNT - regard how much ETH one deposited, LP - regard if and how much liquidity one provided for stETH-ETH,
and
DISTRIBUITED - based on the criteria above see the distribution output and find a balance by “equalising” so we do not end with less than 5 address having +95% of the 0.5% initial governance airdrop. Having a Max CAP could help on this.
Sure is fair for those who deposited more to have more but is the voice of someone that deposited 1k ETH worth 1000% more than one with a 100 ETH deposit?
I think this is vital for initial governance distribution, reward in a balanced way to have a wide distribuite governance. Let me know what you all think.
Also this one favors a lot people who made a few dozen of 0.1 eth deposits (clearly visible on Etherscan) trying to game the system, which is also not good.
Yes however a balance should be found. Excluding all those under 0.01 may leave behind small holders.
After all one can game the system with 0.1, 0.5 or 1 ETH too. The best could be, set to reward more the ones who holded and joined firstly and provided liquidity.
This way the sole deposit even if to game the system that pass still get less than those who contributed more actively.
A sole deposit of 0.01, 0.1 ecc don’t have that much of difference. Surely if many 0.01 are present is hard to justify just cut them off.
Another possibility is to reward someway those who participated in the discussion on this forum helping the project. There is no easy way for that but sure the effort here shows who would participate more actively in the governance.
I think that constructive governance participation should be rewarded too, but it’s clearly not in the remit of proposal #16, so should be discussed separately.