PROPOSED: IIP-134: Index Coop Retrospective Airdrop

I am FOR this IIP which continues the direction of a Pod’s previous extensive work on this, much community discussion and a previous IIP.

Am I correct that the only real change here is some language/terminology and moving to a 200% multiplier for active participants? @Matthew_Graham @Metfanmike There do not appear to be any other significant changes.

With the token price where it is, this isn’t a pay day anyways - and not sure it was crazily before. But, the token price being low does offer some interesting potential tax advantages - as opposed to receiving the airdrop at an $INDEX price of $25, say.

I’d also want the analysis of ‘retention’ here to understand a reasonable behaviour of people selling for conservative tax planning reasons (if they choose) - ie selling 30-50% each month upon receipt. That would not represent suboptimal behaviour in my mind - though I will probably wait to sell for tax coverage (could get egg on my face though).


Standard COI disclosure: I am a potential beneficiary of this airdrop.

UPDATED: with more information on why I am FOR and why I believe the community, investors and methodologists should be to

  • I think the logic to the airdrop’s size and mechanics is well-thought through and reasonable. (Maybe I would say that, as a previous member of the Pod looking at this issue).
  • The airdrop isn’t large - 1.5% versus an initially proposed 7%
  • The airdrop enables the core contributors, with the most tenure and context (inc. many on the council), to own a larger % of the Coop, therefore have more influence at Snapshot. Unless we change our governance structure - which will take a while and be contentious with large holders with less context - this is the best way to enable core leaders to influence the Coop’s direction. These core contributors are i) the best talent we’ve got right now as executors and ii) within them there are some quality leaders I believe. This DAO will probably fail or survive (and maybe win) - I think it’s that binary - over that next 6-18 months with the talent it has and potentially some new talent too. Wholesale new talent and personnel change is unlikely in my view for a few reasons, including time, bums already on seats, incentives, etc. Finally, we launched F all products in Q3 and Q3 in 2021 - we’ve launched four new products in 2022! A good turnaround, though I believe we need to balance simply launching products with focusing resources on growing the ones that really work (as other investment platforms do)
  • Economic incentives do matter (alongside non-economic ones) and our community’s talent has many alternative opportunities competing for its interest. The airdrop helps improves the economic incentives for core, long-term, still active contributors
  • I also believe the airdrop could well create behavioural change, in that it most rewards core, long-term contributors, who then - due to how the airdrop interacts with the DSM and their new stablecoin salary - have an incentive to hold their position (as opposed to liquidating it) due to the increased play it enables in the DSM. There is also a vesting schedule on the liquidity - even if it, as I understand it, is all available for DSM from day1. This critical ‘stickiness’ logic was seen to be robust by the Pod looking at the airdrop and incentives in Q4 2021 (and I believe investors and Set too!) and I don’t believe things have changed to render to logic flawed today
  • Outside of the general macro points above, there has been significant signal given on this issue (via the aforementioned Pod, work shops/leadership calls, investor feedback, IIP and lack of negative recent signal/expectation management from the Index Council) which has influenced community members behaviour. Ie - selling down some $INDEX (to pay taxes or costs) in expectation of the airdrop; accepting Full Time offers with the expectation of stables + airdrop + DSM = package. This issue is different perhaps to some of the ones above, but potentially also very weighty - interacting with our DAO (and other DAOs too) is hard (just ask a few of our methodologists) and we shouldn’t mismanage the expectations of our most valuable resource (our talent).

All this said, as I wrote as the author/co-author of one of the prior forum posts on this subject, ‘With great power and ownership, comes responsibility’. If this IIP passes and the airdrop happens on top of the DSM, it’s really on the core of this community (those who do stay the course) to make Index Coop a success - and be good actors with their $INDEX holdings. Eyes should also be on contributors re simply dumping all their $INDEX.

Thanks to @Metfanmike, @Matthew_Graham and the Finance Nest to shaking life into this and pushing it to imminent IIP.


thanks for pinging on this @Matthew_Graham ; few initial thoughts:

For a 1.5% total distribution I find the specification incredibly confusing; some ad-hoc questions:

  • Given that the airdrop is to bootstrap the DSM for for current contributors (takes tokens to make tokens in the construct, and more earlier is better), why is it being meted out over 6-months? Seems like more carrot for those that have been performing and outsized benefit for those that have been able to afford to either hang onto, or acquire more tokens. Noting that some authors of this proposal benefit more from what is being proposed than what was being proposed, so some explanation here would help balance the trust-equation (with self-interest being the denominator).
  • While I agree with the modifier, I fail to see how giving ANY reward to inactive contributors helps with community ownership . . . while I’m against spreading out the distribution (again, bootstrapping shouldn’t also be a carrot) I’m also against distributing to those that aren’t currently demonstrating impact in this community. As I see it, giving tokens to those that chose other paths and were rewarded for their time here is not helpful to this organization.

I’m for an airdrop to bootstrap the DSM as the DSM is currently fundamentally flawed and shouldn’t have started until it was squared away for all contributors, not just the FTs; I have requested that the current DSM emissions be posted and have received conflicting information in terms of how that’s being calculated, and this seems to have even further indeterminate impact from the same Nest. I’m losing faith in the ability of Finance Nest to meaningfully manage reward and tokenomic distribution. Please provide a well-prepared proposal that meets the intent of the airdrop with a clear specification for the DSM prior, as I can’t make decisions based on things like this with no clear explanation as to what the “minor details” are.

The use of the @Finance tag in the author block is problematic. There is no such thing as corporate personhood in a DAO (only people can be DRIs and call a vote) and we need to know who is putting ideas forth. Please refrain from using the tag for the purpose of novel ideas as it’s irrelevant other than from a signaling standpoint; for Nest reporting, it’s fine but still not ideal.


Hi @mel.eth

Thank you for your comments. I believe nearly all of the methodology presented within this post has been communicated in a prior forum post linked here. The composition and construct of the airdrop emission is very similar to the prior post, with the slight exception, we increased the 1.75 multiplier to 2.0 skewing rewards towards “Current Contributors”. However, the actual impact of this multiplier tweak had minimum impact on the overall outcome.

Do Note the evolution of the DSM & Airdrop started as a cross functional group, with majority outside of Finance Nest. The DSM was widely discussed and reviewed at the council level along with the Core Hires at the time. I believe you were very much apart of that discussion at the time and had/have full access to the file detailing how the DSM is calculated.

However, your concerns have been noted. Community Nest and Finance Nest will present a forum post detailing the DSM model. Please note this post linked here gives a strong flavour for what to expect. What is coming next, is more like a functional specification, as there is hope it will help facilitate the DSM like a smart contract to be built.

On this occasion, after questions were raised during the Wednesday leadership call, all the people mentioned on this post banded together to write this post moving the Airdrop proposal forward. If this group of people did not step in and move this forward, noting the Airdrop was design by the cross functional group detailed on the earlier linked proposal, there would be further delay. May I kindly suggest reaching out via discord in attempt to fact check before unloading on the forum.

The allocation to non active contributors is less than 6.59%. Active contributors, as defined within the post, receive the overwhelming share of the distribution.

Do note all contributors to this forum post are listed by name.


Why the 6 month spread instead of the initial drop?

I will unload on the relevant forum and this is currently it; thanks for engaging but it doesn’t change my opinion that this construct is flawed without an airdrop to make whole contributors that have had to spend earnings to live. The DSM is also currently only serving FT contributors, will it be opened to all current owls?

Can this be quantified?

True, and I’ve said a DSM absent an airdrop to smooth the difference between owls that used earnings to pay living expenses and those that can market buy index to stake is fundamentally flawed the entire time. Showing me a spreadsheet is not an equation, and saying that I’ve been involved as a way to signal previous support of what’s being proposed here is not appreciated.

Is time of the essence?

My main concern is that the airdrop bootstrap the DSM, that can be done as a retro calculation, given that it already is, so why not get this fully baked? You state above that there is forthcoming clarity, and I’m of the opinion that there should have been better clarity to date; seems like we’re aligned that clarity is need here.

I’ve also gotten conflicting info on the DSM in terms of whether it’s like a staking contract that benefits early stalkers more, clarity would be much appreciated.

My point here @Matthew_Graham is that there are too many open ended questions for this to be considered a proposal that is close to being something I’d vote for, and short of a smart contract I don’t see how this is DeFi at all; a lot of tokens under consideration and a Google doc to manage seems risky. There’s no rush on this in real terms and it should precede the DSM for calculation purposes, but that’s based on fairness not math so do with that what you will.


Hi @mel.eth,

Let me see if I can help try answer these questions here for you.

The above query was covered in an earlier linked post found here. Sect. 6.4 states as shown below:

“An individual’s airdrop will be received monthly over six months with no requirement to maintain active status. Contributors active and inactive are eligible for their airdrop tokens over six months. Given the airdrop is substantially smaller now, with an active/inactive lookup in the model, we think this distribution logic is fair.”

Yes. It was modelled. Shifting from x1.75 to x2.0 resulted in a net delta of 0.87% transferred between “Current Contributor” and others.

With this intent, I believe finding a way forward would act to serve this goal. I believe the intent here is to enable the airdrop to proceed quickly. This is aligned with the concerns raised during the leadership call.

Do note, this spreadsheet contains a series of linked logical mathematical formulas that is the model. A high level functional outline has been provided in an earlier post showing the key relationships at play. Having access to the raw file, enables any viewer to invest the necessary time to understand the model in its entirety. It is fair to expect most will seek a TL;DR style approach rather than a show me line by line the math and interwoven relationships.

I believe Yes. The Core Hire proposal has passed and the DSM has been implemented. INDEX is currently being allocated based on the model. Given the Airdrop was always vested over 6 month period with monthly payments and the DSM had a start date was always a set date, there will remain this fundamental difference. In attempt to reduce the overhead and complexity, the intent here is to do something in the near future.

I believe the vote for how the DSM was to be implemented has already past and the opportunity here, is one that is forward looking. With limited developer resources in-house, there may exist an opportunity to offer a grant or hire a contractor to develop this Smart Contract as to not impede on our primary business objectives.


This opinion represents my own views, and does not represent Set Lab’s views. I come from the perspective of someone who wants IC to succeed and for $INDEX to be worth $100.

One thing that Index Coop needs to do is to make a turnaround happen. As of now, $INDEX price is going down, because it’s not launching profitable products and it is emitting $INDEX tokens to community members in unsustainable manner that does not support the launching and growth of successful products. Index Coop needs to make significant changes such as redoing how it allocates resources, hiring the right NEW product / Eng folks, and getting the right leaders / people in place. The biggest issue today is that Index Coop is a bureaucratic DAO, in which there is significant political messes / nothing truly getting done vs. a CEO DAO or Autonomous DAO. IMO - These are the real issues that need to be addressed and we need to fund people / initiatives that get us closer to this new state where products are getting launched, there are sufficient incentives for the right people, IC is innovating on products / growth, and ultimately $INDEX is going up

This initiative seems to support more the status quo (no significant change than what Index Coop needs and bolstering the power of existing community members that may not have the skills / influence to make the change needed). Thus, I am generally against this set of incentives and want us to think more about first noting 1) what does Index Coop need to succeed and then 2) creating incentives that move the community there.


We will not reach consensus on this topic - and so I am keen we take this proposal through Snapshot as soon as possible.

I will be voting AGAINST for the following reasons:

  • Our Priority Hiring process has already provided generous compensation to the core team
  • A backward facing airdrop drives no behavioral change
  • I would rather see funds allocated towards forward-looking growth and hiring activity

We have poor INDEX market liquidity, little INDEX demand and no new tokenomics model. With so much still for IC to prove, an airdrop now just doesn’t feel right.


@Matthew_Graham Please provide the link to the spreadsheet. My expectation based of off previous communications was that the airdrop was part of a comprehensive compensation package. I was not aware until recently that this was not the case.

I’ve made decisions based off of these assumptions that affect how I approach the DSM and build meaningful ownership which I now need to re-evaluate. Thanks


Great ask/point re this spreadsheet. The last airdrop communication to the community had an open G Sheet for review - to see personal and wider community impact.

This should be open like DSM levels mostly have been.


Just for clarity, are you saying the decisions IC made around the recent compensation packages were made on the assumption there would not be an airdrop?

I politely disagree in the specific sense that there is always a trade-off between building long term ownership with $index vs realising that value today. Each individual’s preferences and circumstances will differ when deciding which to sacrifice. An airdrop changes the dynamics in this decision (at least for me).


I appreciate the frank, honest communication. However, I have to say I am confused by the sentiment expressed as I believe the turnaround is happening. The last 2-3 months have seen a drastic re-focusing within the community on tackling inefficiencies, improving profitability and sustainable resource allocation. In q4 21 we launched zero products, we all shared similar frustrations at that time. In the last 6 weeks, together we have released 4 products and the pipeline is flowing.

A corner has been turned. The co-operative is executing again. We are aware of the fundamental issues, they are being considered and aggressively addressed.

In terms of hiring, the council has just completed a comprehensive hiring program. Index Coop has never been as well equipped in terms of talented key personnel in the core areas you mentioned as it is today. Do you believe that this did not go far enough, was not done correctly, or are you expressing that you do not have sufficient faith in the current cohort?

I am speaking for myself but I’m sure I also speak for many that no one is more frustrated by internal bureaucracy, operational burden, politics, indecision and lack of direction more than we are. It is 100% right to call these problems out. We would all much rather be an Autonomous DAO but that is extremely hard in the current set-up where the community contributors have little to no material governance in the future success story we collectively want to see. I believe a 1.5% distribution is a strong start on the way to help remedy this and in combination with the DSM is a way to incentivise long term holding and alignment of incentives and values.


Thanks for the reply @MrMadila

From my a compensation scheme perspective, I cannot see how doing a 1.5% distribution would increase the equity value of $INDEX. From looking at many other DeFi projects, pure distributions simply result in additional tokens that get sold onto the market - further depressing prices.

A potentially better schema that aligns incentives would be to do KPI options where community members are initially DELEGATED voting power, but only receive tokens if $INDEX sustains $40 for 3 months. This would incentivize massive change to happen that improve the enterprise value of $INDEX.

Re: change, I appreciate and do note that significant work is being done to try to improve things across the board. From my vantage point, the community doesn’t have the talent in some of the areas that matter (e.g. leadership, product, eng) and dramatic-enough changes are not happening [sorry to be vague, but I can go on and on in terms of what needs to be done and some of it has been shared w/ the council].

In my humble opinion - to achieve the end state of an Autonomous DAO, I’d avocate for a CEO DAO model to make those massive changes required before going to Autonomous. Having been a big part of the INDEX 2.0 efforts, it’s hard to say that there have been meaningful-enough changes via the Bureaucratic DAO perspective (as INDEX has just been going down since and it doesn’t seem like deep problems have been solved since).

So something like Bureacratic DAO (today) → CEO DAO (interim) → Autonomous DAO (end state).


Hi @setoshi,

To provide context here, there is another forum post that details the relationship between the DSM program and the Airdrop.

Early this quarter the Index Council put forward a proposal to hire a core team, the details can be found here. The Core Team’s package is Salary + DSM. The DSM emissions are based solely on how many INDEX are held within a specified wallet address. In many ways, this is Salary + Equity with the caveat that the Equity component is influenced by INDEX retention and the persons time served at Index Coop.

The DSM emissions are based on the INDEX holdings within a specified wallet. As @MrMadila wrote, people developed expectations that an Airdrop would occur and made decisions based on this. Others @mel.eth’s point would like to implement an accrual type accounting system whereby the entire Airdrop amount is included in the DSM from day 1 without the recipient having received the INDEX tokens to a later date. To @Pepperoni_Joe point the conversation is a sensitive one and it is unlikely all parties will converge to the same conclusion.

During Wednesday’s leadership call a range of views were expressed. It became clear this was a contentious topic and it risked growing into a largely unproductive time sink diverting effort from some of the areas mentioned in your earlier posts. With the intent to move quickly and bring the discussion to a head, @Metfanmike and I took an action to lead this initiative. With the help of @Hammad1412, @ElliottWatts and @prairiefi we quickly dusted off what prior work that was done, updated the model and presented the findings here on the forum. Collectively, this group believes the parameters selected above are the best combination and this proposal was drafted in a professional manner independent of individual’s views.

With the intent to move quickly, we will progress to a vote this coming week. INDEX holders will determine the outcome and the implications will be final. Recognising the INDEX token is for governance, it should be used for its intended purpose. I encourage everyone to vote on the Airdrop, express their views and accept the outcome whatever it may be.

Regarding the comments around what the Organisation structure of the Index Coop DAO should look like. This is not the thread, perhaps an open public internet forum is not the right medium for such a discussion. I will echo @MrMadila, many changes have been made across the DAO since the Index Council was formed. The creation of the Index Council moves the DAO closer to the top down structure which I believe you are supportive of. I hope the Index Council continues and we can continue to refine our business model and operations. We have a mandate to be more prudent with spend going forward and the new seasonal budget model reduces cadence whilst receiving a far more in depth review than past proposals.


I think a DAO-level financial forecast would help clarify the discussion on the best structure. (I don’t have enough context to comment on the airdrop debate.)

If the DAO can achieve profitability before runway-end then that’s an argument that the current model is at the very least sustainable despite all its foibles and inefficiencies. I know sustainability is not an ambitious goal in itself but it’s a minimal requirement.

If the DAO can’t achieve profitability before runway-end (assuming we don’t raise more VC funding) then that’s a strong argument for a turnaround program and the sooner the better.

@ElliottWatts I know you’re working on a financial forecast. I would suggest sharing that with the organization when it’s complete. Everyone will appreciate that there will be a lot of assumptions, particularly on the product launch dates and revenue. Once we know whether the current model is sustainable or not, then we can have a grounded discussion on alternatives.


Hey @Matthew_Graham appreciate you shepherding this effort and hitting my comments.

Re the 6-month distribution, you covered the distribution methodology but not the logic; why will it be spread out if the result is that all tokens will be distributed and that INDEX could be earning in the DSM for contributors? I’d rather see this implementation changed to:

  • Airdop INDEX will be retroactively counted toward DSM accrual for ACTIVE contributors starting 01FEB22, disbursed with the first 6-month vest or fully disbursed upon a change from ACTIVE status (keeps INDEX in DSM);
  • INACTIVE contributors will receive their retroactive airdrop distribution over 6-months in equal amounts (prevents dumping).

My intent here is to maximize DSM participation at genesis given that my understanding is that the relative allocation by contributor matters and contributors that haven’t been able to accrue due to living expenses fare worse in this model on a forward basis, and that’s not the intent (please clarify re how rewards are calculated, I know you said it can be reverse-intuited from a spreadsheet but I was unable over the course of hours and it’s not fair to put that on every contributor). Given we’re still in draft I believe providing a guarantee against dumping by active contributors and incentivizing further alignment (when the desired outcome initially was greater protocol ownership by contributors) should be considered.

NOTE: As I understand it, the implementation I’m recommending would have me faring worse (again, absent further clarification I can’t confirm and that’s causing frustration); but I do think it’s more fair. I’ll not let FAIR be the enemy of GOOD, so I’ll vote FOR either way, but I think proposers would get a better result if you made this more clear and inclusive in terms of access to the DSM reward at genesis.

Please don’t forget to call for GovRep review when ready to get an IIP number assigned; thanks again.


I have updated my first comment with a fuller rationale for why I am FOR.


I’ll be voting in favor of this proposal.

The key motivation for an airdrop has been to increase team ownership of the project. The initial airdrop construct and subsequent iterations were well socialized across the community for feedback in 2021, including with investors and with Set. The Compensation Committee took in the feedback received and incorporated changes to the construct:

  • The airdrop was reduced from an initial target of 7% down to 1.5%.
  • The initial iteration of the airdrop had a large % available to sell on Day 1. Now the airdrop becomes available to a recipient over the course of six months, to reduce sell pressure.
  • This construct is also now more heavily weighted towards the active core and flexible contributors.

Now, my understanding of the construct has been the same as @mel.eth’s as to whether the full airdrop counts towards the DSM. It was intended to all count on Day 1, regardless of whether or not a contributor is able to sell any of it. Many contributors made personal financial decisions based on that same understanding, to @MrMadila’s point. I was very supportive of adding the 6-month time release when that was recommended, but I don’t believe that design should act to further reduce how much of the airdrop is eligible for the DSM. It’s a fine compromise to force a staggered, six-month release but to then also allow the full amount to count towards the DSM benefits (which, I’ll add, won’t even be realized unless the contributor stays active for an additional six months).

The counterargument being made by those against this proposal is that most community members will en masse sell the airdrop the moment once they receive it (even with the 6-month staggered time release). Why do they assume this? To date, the Index Coop compensation construct has been to reward contributors with INDEX for monthly wages, and many contributors subsequently sold their INDEX rewards once they received them. This shouldn’t be surprising, though, as people had to pay for rent, food, etc.

However, the new construct (only being put in place now) changes that dynamic (by offering a base salary in stablecoins) and therefore aims to change behavior by encouraging longer-term holding of core contributors’ INDEX holdings (their ‘equity’(like) piece). One would be better off selling stablecoins to pay bills and holding onto the airdrop to increase DSM benefits, rather than selling.

Re: @setoshi’s comments, I wholeheartedly agree with Matthew that the forum is a poor venue to have that discussion. I share some of Felix’s concerns and criticisms for how the organization was operating, but his comments here are based on outdated information and don’t factor in the turnaround that has been actively in the works since he last visited the forum.

I want to thank the Finance Nest - @Matthew_Graham, @Hammad1412, @prairiefi, and @ElliottWatts - for their work to refresh the numbers so we can have this conversation and vote on the proposal, regardless of how it turns out. It’s terrific work.


@setoshi Thanks again for sharing your honest opinions and perspectives on these complex topics.

I am an advocate of any airdrop being subject to vests and long term incentives for the community to retain such an allocation. This was my understanding of one of the benefits of the DSM.

My personal perspective was that increased community ownership is reflexive in the sense that it helps to align incentives with the aim to increase the long term equity value of $index. Not only through profitability and growth but also owning the responsibility of prudent management of resources.

I was under the impression the whole council/leaders of index 2.0 were in close communication with key stakeholders and that this perspective was also shared. We have spent what has felt like 100’s of man-hours collectively building this consensus. This is why there is such a huge expectation shock from myself and many others at the sudden change in narrative. I do empathise with those who feel an airdrop is a blunt instrument, but again I feel I/many were lead to believe a lot of time and effort had gone into refining and addressing as many of the drawbacks as possible.

I agree KPI options are also a potentially useful tool. Could you clarify who you believe would be delegating in this instance? VCs? Sets allocation? Community treasury allocation etc? And to who? You mention a “CEO” DAO, I take this as literally one person or a very small team to make top-down decisions. Who in your view who would make such an appointment? Token holders or the community?

Disclosure: I would be a beneficiary of this airdrop

Re: change, will be brief here as I feel this particular dialogue is becoming worthy of its own venue… We are just 8 days from the end of the council. From there or after a short break we will need to either continue it, revert back to pre-council times or find a new decision-making team and/or even a new structure. Given your views what do you believe is the best course of action to take from here. Will you and the council be in close discussion?


If my memory serves me correctly, there were almost twice as many contributors eligible for the airdrop than there were priority hires this season. That ratio will likely tip even more towards non-core team now that Nov / Dec / Jan have been added to the eligible airdrop window (can confirm this once the data is available). Granted, the ultimate airdrop allocation will overlap significantly with priority hires that already have salary + equity packages, but we can’t overlook all the other contributors who didn’t make the cut this season (myself included).

I was personally disappointed to not receive an offer, but there was consolation in knowing this airdrop could grow my ownership in the Coop (especially since I’ve opted for USDC rewards since going full-time). I understand that the DSM will also accomplish this, but it’s frustrating to learn here that priority hires have early access to the DSM ahead of the rest of the community. We must be mindful of this segregation we’ve introduced - consciously or not - between the newly-christened core team and community contributors.

I hope that this comment does not come across as embittered or envious because I am genuinely delighted for the core team that was hired, and I’m pleased to see so many key people rewarded for their persistent contributions to the Index Coop. My request is that we don’t forget about the majority of contributors who may have also put in many months of work and are equally committed to our collective success.

While I generally agree with conserving the community’s capital, I see this airdrop as a show of good faith to the gold owls and other full-time contributors like myself who hope to be included in the next round of hiring. The actual amount of INDEX to be airdropped is a fraction of the original proposal as @Metfanmike alluded to, and for the average recipient, their share of the airdrop will be significantly lower than the equity allocated to the lowest band of priority hires. In other words, this airdrop could very well retain some of the talent that must wait another season to be considered core team. This is simply my perspective though.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: I am a potential beneficiary of this airdrop.


Allan raises very valid points. We have been here before in creating perceived segregation when the FT packages were first introduced. Again the sentiment was that the people chosen were deserved but that it left many out with no objective plan or criteria to include them at a later date. The unintended consequences lead to trust and perceptions of fairness being eroded and tarnished which crept into working day life within the community. That was just a handful of people, I expressed concerns at the time of what it would lead to. This time the scale is much much larger and starting from a place of a material dislocation in expectations.

I strongly ask that we do not rush this IIP through and risk prematurely cementing the current confusion, frustration, disappointment, division and feelings of unfairness into the community psyche.