After a successful Token Launch Auction on Copper where ~50% of the 3.75M POP offered were acquired, we have 1,869,946 POP remaining that has been returned to the Treasury. We’ve received many questions on what to do with the remainder from the LBP which I would like to address with 4 proposals below.
Proposal 1
37.5% allocated to LBP participants
25.0% to stakers
37.5% to beneficiaries
Vesting for participants and stakers: Locked 6 months up to 1 year, 1 year linear vest thereafter
Purpose:
Rewards early loyal users who participated in the LBP
Rewards new users who stake
Rewards Popcorn’s beneficiaries determined by POP token holders in the future
Proposal 2
75% allocated to stakers
25% to beneficiaries
Vesting for stakers: Locked 6 months up to 1 year, 1 year linear vest thereafter
Purpose:
Heavily rewards new users who stake
Rewards Popcorn’s beneficiaries determined by POP token holders in the future
Proposal 3
50% allocated to LBP participants
50% to beneficiaries
Vesting for LBP participants: Locked 6 months up to 1 year, 1 year linear vest thereafter
Rewards early loyal users who participated in the LBP
Rewards Popcorn’s beneficiaries determined by POP token holders in the future
Proposal 4
80% allocated to LBP participants
20% to beneficiaries
Vesting for LBP participants: Locked 6 months up to 1 year, 1 year linear vest thereafter
Purpose:
Heavily rewards early users who participated in the LBP
Rewards Popcorn’s beneficiaries determined by POP token holders in the future
This is meant for community discussion and is also a great opportunity to reward loyal users as well as allow Popcorn to contribute to the public benefit. Vote on which proposal you prefer below!
I think Proposal 4 is by far the most beneficial proposal to the longterm health of the protocol. Giving out such a big percentage of the total supply to the staking module, will kill midterm price action in tandem with unlockings of tokens from early backers. Tokens should be locked as long as possible and incentivize early backers to have the longterm health of the protocol in mind.
I think out of those 4 proposals the second one will have the most positive (short term) effect regarding $POP price stability since you need to stake in order to earn more . However, I also see possible negative impact in the mid to long term as described by @Hellboy.
Giving LBP participants free POP as described in the other proposals sounds nice for those who miscalculated the right time to jump in (I bought a larger chunk around 3$ btw…), however it doesn’t attract new users and their money!
Regarding the “25% to beneficiaries”: Sounds good, especially if accompanied with some marketing action, however to not further create price pressure those $POP need to be time-locked or in another way delayed from market entry. My suggestion would be to give 12,5% to a single good cause AND use the other 12,5% to “pay” people for their contributions to the common goal (maybe in the form of contests etc). I have a suggestion on how to do that
Hey everyone. I think Proposal 2 is perfect to draw in investors who although may not be looking to create social impact at first but is certainly looking to grow thier crypto assets. More investors will build up TVL which can be very enticing to other investors, among others. This can likewise be an opportunity to grow the DAO. In this manner we focus on the process so we can achieve the goal. The goal being DeFi4Good.
I agree with @ToBe. 25% to beneficiaries is ~467,000 tokens which should have time lock to prevent dump.
Alternative suggestion
To throw a curve ball into the mix here, what if we paired or allocated 1 beneficiary token to every 1 token invested by corporate investor(s) up to the cap of 476,000 tokens and the corporate investor(s) are then free to choose their nominated beneficiary either from predetermined list (eg from The Giving Block) or nominate a new one which then gets approved by the DAO to meet recipient criteria requirements.
Benefits:
we grow corporate investor base
we increase market cap
beneficiaries benefit
POP holders benefit
The Giving Block could promote it
we work with the corporate’s media / comms team to promote it, attracting more corporate ESG-driven investors.
If this is too complex / will take too long we could just finalise the proposal as-is and consider something like this for future action.
Here a word in for option 3, (or any option really). What if the allocations to beneficiaries were locked and reserved until one year after the auction, then distributed on a rolling basis over the course of the next year?
My vote was for option #1 because of the higher % allocated to beneficiaries - the main reason we IMO. Taking in the consideration for a likely dump (there’s a reason why beneficiaries are beneficiaries), mitigate that by delaying the immediate impact and softening it by not releasing all at once.
Who are “beneficiaries” in this scenario, like chartible donations? Cause I’m ok with that. But I do feel LBP auction buyers should get some. Option 2 is probably worst option and yet some how leading poll.
from a selfish POV, most LBP participants would choose 5 but that would not be beneficial to the project. 1 seems the most fair. gotta agree with @Dannylux up here ^. it’s odd that option 2 is leading the poll. 75% out of the unsold 50% tokens to benefit everyone else BUT the LBP participants is odd to say the least & a sure way to alienate LBP participants.
Yea. I’m LBP and I went option 1 but since seed rounders averaged $0.45 and auction probably averages $3, a vested drop that INCLUDES LBP makes most sense. I’ve feeling alienated already just cause the polling. If this was done by snapshot so only actual token holders can vote, I can guarantee this wouldn’t be the case.
Good point re voting, and that snapshot would allow only token holders to vote.
Re option 2 - I read it as anyone who stakes can benefit. So LBP participants still holding onto their POP can benefit alongside new holders.
Is this correct?
Note: I’ve not voted yet so am still impartial.
Distributing the remaining POP to TLA participants will reward even those who dumped their POP right after the LPs went live. Imho those short-term thinking traders shouldn’t be rewarded for their actions that drove the price . Increased stake rewards on the other hand will be an incentive for new people to buy POP right before the staking starts () and will reward those TLA participants who kept their POP despite the price going south.
to stake 
I think Proposal 2 is perfect to draw in investors who although may not be looking to create social impact at first but is certainly looking to grow thier crypto assets. More investors will build up TVL which can be very enticing to other investors, among others. This can likewise be an opportunity to grow the DAO. In this manner we focus on the process so we can achieve the goal. The goal being DeFi4Good.
. Increased stake rewards on the other hand will be an incentive for new people to buy POP right before the staking starts (
) and will reward those TLA participants who kept their POP despite the price going south.