We as community have decided to start a debate regarding the Zilswap twitter post:
“we are reviewing internally if the “15% vote requirement” to qualify for the liquidity mining allocation is too strict. It is possible to do pro-rata rewards (based on % vote casted) to all selected tokens, if the token has garnered > 5% of the votes. Selection of tokens to be voted on will be based on debates about their qualification by our community members on the new Discourse forum and a signal vote held there. More details to come when the forum is live and we will put it up as a new proposal (LIP-3) to discuss.”
Please express your thoughts on what you guys think about this.
If 5 tokens are not filled with 15% or more voting; then pro-rata rewards looks good to go into proposal for voting those tokens with more than 5% vote.
If all 5 tokens get 15% or more voting; then pro-rata rewards voting should not be considered.
I think if Zilswap wants to change the proposal, then we should probably have a re-vote on the new proposal. I also think it would probably be reasonable to wait until the next cycle, given that some people have already “priced in” the results of the previous vote. Or maybe simply shorten the first cycle to 60 or 30 days instead of 90? My 17 cents.
I also like this idea. Keep the results from the first vote, but start the 2nd round in 30 days with adjustments made based on the lessons learned from this initial round.
i think the idea of shortening the cycle for this one is a good idea - but anything has changes to what happens.
The pro rata rewards idea certainly is a better distribution model than the 15% of votes - too easy for grassroots projects to miss out on rewards on the 15%. 5% sounds better
Whats the proposal here - remember it MUST pass voting. personally changing to the pro rata rewards for next vote would surely get traction.
Like others have said above, maybe a way would be to shorten the cycle, but not sure you want to put them both into 1 proposal, or into 2?
The purpose of this entire proposal is inclusion, so no matter how big or small of a vote is as long as it is substantial, it is better if we include as much coin as possible.
the system we have created should come to a decision that if a whale was to blame for bolt dishonestly getting more than 15% of the votes than it should be nullified. And another vote for coins which received les than 15% should come to effect.
It was the community who initially decided on the vote and now the community again can and has to decide if another vote and exclusion of bolt can happen, if we really want to keep the ecosystem fair!
I think it’s very fair chart like port coin in no 1 yes the deserve this weldone zilliqa for this effort it’s point out which is the top coin on zilliqa platform.
Bolt should be removed from consideration in receiving zwap rewards. Their recent burning of erc20 tokens and minting of zrc2 tokens for their own profit is unacceptable. I would like to see bolt’s allocation of zwap rewards to be split between ZCH and REDC, so that PORT=165.28 ZLP=165.28 ZCH=82.64 REDC=82.64.
How would you do that, as we vote by wallet address and whales that are oout there to cheat the system, can create numerous addresses and consequently votes. It is difficult! May be someone has already come up with a novel idea!
Please make sure all projects in Zilliqa eco-system are rewarded. Currently Bolt is reaping benefits which should never ever happened BUT true zilliqa ecosystem project ZCH and REDC get nothing. We can not let this happen.
