Immediately allocate 5% of treasury to DPI holders/LPs from snapshot

I propose to take the immediately available community treasury of 5% and allocate that to the DPI holders/LPs from the snapshot.

Currently, the DPI holders/LPs control 100% of Index tokens and could pass this.

The logic being that this group was allocated 1% and are about to be quickly diluted by the 9% liquidity mining program which will mostly go to whales.

By allocating 5% to the snapshot holders, they will then have 6% of total governance share. They will then swiftly be diluted by the liquidity mining and Set team vesting. 6% is a good number to have early adopters of DPI and crypto index products help steward governance in a positive way.

This has to be done immediately as very soon the 1% share of snapshot holders will be diluted and their role in governance will fade into obscurity.

I would argue it’s very good for the protocol to have early adopters and not whales controlling a larger share of governance.

The DPI snapshot holders are the only group that we know for certain to have expressed a genuine interest in crypto index products. All new liquidity mining programs may attract only those who are yield farming who don’t care about index products.

I believe it is in the best interest long term of Index to have a core community with aligned incentives who will help this project succeed.

I recommend this 5% vest over 4 years to ensure long term alignment amongst the snapshot Index holders.

If this fails to pass, the majority control of governance will be in the hands of profit maximalist whales and the Set team. This seems like a far less interesting project than if there was real grass roots community governance.

For reference, 10% of UNI was distributed to early users vs 1% for Index.

I call for an immediate vote so this proposal can pass before the current Index holders are diluted and lose majority governance forever.

Vote Yes on proposal to allocate 5% of treasury to DPI holders/LPs at snapshot
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters


To the author, please add a poll to this to so that the developers and moderators can see proposal sentiment.

I agree that very early adopters, before there was an incentive plan in place should receive more, although I am grateful for the little bit of INDEX that I had been airdropped. Whales are definitely a concern even with the long multiyear planning to mitigate them. Now that they know the Indices game plan to mitigate them, they can adjust their strategies to hold on longer to get that bigger distro of INDEX tokens. Without knowledge of this mitigation strategy, the Whales could have possibly bailed or lessened their stake thereby spreading the rewards to more non-whales. I was personally in very early because I had been waiting for a transparent smart Index token for a long time.

1 Like

I added a poll, thanks for the suggestion.

I’d like to add that I believe this is beneficial even for Index community members who were not in the snapshot. By having real users have a larger control of governance, it is more likely we will pass proposals that help the average community member. If it’s largely controlled by whales/Set, the chances of this go down.


I don’t agree with the post snapshot members. It’s too difficult to separate the genuine users and LPs, from the new lot that just jumped in because of the farming incentives.

Right. I just mean by rewarding snapshot holders more, they will be more likely to pass pro-community proposals. As opposed to pro-whale proposals.

1 Like

I strongly agree with this proposal.

It would be great for early adopters to have more of a say. They represent early believers and would serve gov well.

UNI early adopters got 10% for example. Here: just 1%. IMO not enough compared to 9% for LPs over 60 days.


I do not agree with your proposal. Take me for example, which only just saw the announcement today and if I’d known faster I would have bought the DPI token earlier.

Why not include myself in that pool, since I’ve bought DPI yesterday and saw the Index announcement today?

So yeah, I don’t think it’s fair for me.

1 Like

A proposal to give away 5% of tokens within hours of launching? Calm down.

First off we’d be giving 6% of supply to only 1,000 addresses. Not only is this too consolidated as initial distribution it only represents one index and ideally we are launching dozens more over the next few years. If you want long term sustainability giving away all the tokens immediately is how you get forked because no one has an incentive to contribute later instead of making their own distribution

I’m also against liquidity mining incentives and would favor shifting incentivizes to people that buy more Sets which increases our AUM. We can make LP as part of the Set strategy if we think it’s that necessary.

Comparing to $UNI is a bad example for several reasons. Their product was out for years not weeks so they should give away more tokens. They had tens of thousands of users not barley one thousand. They already had a robust ecosystem around them and didn’t need to keep as many in the treasury to incentivize integrations and partnerships.

1% of INDEX for holding a DPI for a couple weeks is totally fair. There is no benefit to distributing more except it’s in the interest of the recipients themselves. How you frame this proposal is clearly a power grab and it sets a bad precedent for the community.


We can’t be fair to everyone 100%. We have to draw a line somewhere.

There is no perfect way to get governance into the hands of people that actually care about the protocol. But, allocating based on a past snapshot of DPI holders is one of the best ways we have. People who bought DPI early likely had no expectation of recieving a free airdrop, or any liquidity mining rewards. Rather, they were excited about holding an index fund as an investment and generally bought small amounts. I believe this is a great selection criteria for decentralised governance.

With the current schedule, these people will be quickly diluted and eclipsed by the liquidity mining participants. Going from 1000+ holders (as per the 1% distribution) to a handful of whales (with 9% distribution) is heading in the wrong direction in my view. A quick look through Twitter will show you the strong backlash against the current distribution schedule (high team/insider share).

This is not about voting to give ourselves more money. There is next to zero liquidity in the INDEX-ETH pool anyway, so only a handful of current holders could cash out even if they wanted to. I would also oppose liquidity mining for the INDEX-ETH pool as price stability/liquidity is not important for the token at the moment.

What is important is developing and curating more indices, utilising a passionate governance community to get there.

I support the proposal.


I like the idea in theory (especially if those funds are vested).
However, how to define the snapshot date ?
Since the Uniswap “airdrop”, some people might have speculatively created multiple addresses and use various projects just in case those projects do a similar airdrop.
Hence no one can say for sure how many humans there are behind those addresses.

  • One solutions could be to use a solution such as BrightID - people would need to verify their uniqueness for being able to claim. But it is a barrier to entry.
  • Another solution is to simply distribute proportionally to liquidity to each address, without trying to achieve 100% fairness. The biggest holders were probably minters/arbitrageurs (== mostly team ?) but those did contribute to the product and deserve rewards as well.
1 Like

I disagree with the proposal as you are targeting a specific date in the past, clearly benefiting to some people (including you I guess). At least the first airdrop was a surprise and nobody could expect for it. Better propose improvements for the upcoming days and foster a community around that. I vote no.


I also disagree with the proposal. INDEX token shouldn’t be airdropped to holders from a specific time, only the 1% made sense. In my opinion INDEX token should be dropped to token holders of DPI over time and other indexes that will be introduced. This way current and new holders are getting an incentive to hold and buy more.
Let’s not rush to fast with this kind of highly impacting proposals.

My suggestion is to add a time-bound drop of INDEX tokens to DPI holders to incentivise long-term holding of DPI during the initial stages of growth.

For example: A 6-month holding phase while at the end of the 6 months, each DPI holder or ex-DPI holder is rewarded according to time they held DPI.


Anyone who invested in DPI prior to the snapshot did so with no risk other than holding the Set, and the proposal doesn’t give any evidence that these holders are more aligned with governing Index Co-op. Those who are providing liquidity to farm Index currently do so knowing that they face Impermenant Loss, price of Index falling and the risk of holding the DPI set, arguably taking this risk shows more commitment than being the lucky recipient of an airdrop.

So looking at this objectively, it’s a simple cash grab from those who were rewarded for something they didn’t know was going to happen. Adding a further 5% for no additional risk is certainly unfair on those that are now contributing to liquidity because they want to be a part of the protocol in the future. There is a much fairer and more balanced proposal live now that discusses rewarding users and LP’s going forward, we should focus on that rather than trying to retroactively reward a random group of people whose intentions can’t be inferred from their purchase of DPI.


Thanks for all the feedback.

After reflecting on this. I agree with many people that it would be better to include future community members as to be as inclusive as possible.

I think there are a couple considerations for why the original airdrop holders are particularly good candidates to receive these funds.

The snapshot is actually sybil resistant. There was a category for $100k + which received 2850 tokens but nobody knew in advance where these categories would be delineated. If I did, I would have broken up my DPI holdings across many wallets. The element of surprise and these cutoffs are effectively an excellent anti-sybil measure, something you can’t get going forward.

Regardless, my main concern is aligning governance with people who care about crypto indexes. The early adopters are a great way to do that, but I digress.

If we want to reward early adopters, I like the idea of rewarding long term holders / LPs of the ETH/DPI index. However, I don’t want to simply reward whales who farm and dump. The fact that the UI on has an APY flys in the face of this. It is encouraging short term farming and dumping. I think we all agree that’s terrible.

What if we do something where tokens are vested, as well as weighting it by time spent in the pool. Perhaps even exponentially so. If you LP for longer than a month, you get x% more than under a month. And longer than 3 months, you get another x% bonus. Basically incentivizing long term LPing. This shows you probably actually want to buy and hold the DPI vs purchasing it for a short term unvested farm campaign.

I would still suggest voting an additional 1-5% for the DPI snapshot holders anyway, as this is the only non-gameable way of distributing, but I also support additional long term Liquidity Mining campaigns.


This was a big bummer for me. I missed the airdrop snapshot by a day. I bought DPI on Oct 4th and I wasnt included. I am not even a whale, I just like the idea of DPI token so I bought it.

LPs und DPI-Holders should be rewarded much higher, bc their contributions are critical.
The current allocation is highly centralized. This sucks and that’s why INDEX is not seen as a chad-asset on CT

1 Like

i believe that this is bad idea.
and im a small investor

1 Like