CP84: Unclaimed Polkadot Rewards

Centrifuge Governance Proposals
, , , ,
1

Good day, Community :raised_hand:!

Uses component: CP4
Author(s): @ImdioR, @Rhano
Technical/non-technical proposal: Technical
Date proposed: 2024-01-17

Short Summary

  • Discontinue claiming of Centrifuge crowdloan rewards

High-level objective

  • This proposal, if passed, will discontinue claiming of Centrifuge crowdloan rewards which will beneficially impact the tokenomics of Protocol

Background

Around 2 years ago Centrifuge won the 8th slot in Parachain auctions collecting 5,435,161 DOT raised from 27,101 contributions.
2024-01-16 the leasing period ended and all DOTs were returned to all contributors.

Throughout the leasing period, the CFG protocol carried out significant updates not only to the CFG network through Runtime Upgrades, but also carried out significant Polkadot updates, which entailed changes and sometimes unexpected bugs, and errors, including errors in claiming crowdloan rewards.
In this regards, engineers were forced to fix and be distracted from the development and implementation of new features.

Description of Activity

The primary purpose of this proposal is to provide ample time for crowdloan contributors to claim their rewards and, after a certain period (described in detail below) suspend claiming.

Discontinuing claiming rewards in our opinion will beneficially impact Centrifuge Tokenomics and at the same time will allow engineers to focus on the development and building of protocol.

The action plan structure:

  1. Create an Opensquare snapshot vote
  2. If the Opensquare snapshot vote passes, provide 60 (sixty) period for claiming the rewards from the date of the approval of Opensquare Snapshot, after which no more rewards will be minted.
  3. After 60 (sixty) days from the approval of the Opensquare snapshot vote(if it is passed) upload an empty claim tree.
  4. Remove the crowdloan pallet (modlcc/rewrd) in the upcoming Centrifuge Runtime Upgrade.

Change or improvement

  • Discontinue crowdloan rewards claiming 60 (sixty) after the date this proposal passes (if it is passed)

Alignment to the mission of Centrifuge DAO

  • Discontinuing Centrifuge crowdloan rewards will ensure that human resources are better allocated and efforts are focused on developing and implementing new features as well as a beneficial impact on Protocol Tokenomic.

The RFC will be open for a minimum of 7 days.

29/01/2024 Update.

Based on received feedbacks and inputs the proposal was modified.
Changes:

  • Claiming period was extended from 30 (thirty) days to 60 (sixty) days

Link to the proposal on Github: cps/cps/CP84.md at main · centrifuge/cps · GitHub
Link to the proposal on Opensquare: CP84: Unclaimed Polkadot Rewards

5 Likes
2

I fully support this proposal because all Crowdloan-participants had enough time to claim their outstanding rewards.

Do you have an overview, (a) how many CFG-tokens haven’t been claimed yet by (b) how many addresses?

1 Like
3

Hi there, I see you’ve helped a lot of people with the issue that I’m having which is an insufficient funds error to claim our rewards. I went to Coinbase and bought some wrapped CFG but now I can’t find any instructions anywhere for how to swap this or unwrap these tokens to get them onto my Polkadot JS wallet address: 5FbhrCSsAmfEgfA8NtGjeRigajicXqjpTFmLzuj1Fg7GUNvk

Can you help me with those instructions? Or if you’d prefer to be my faucet, that would be very much appreciated! Thank you, Mark

1 Like
4

This is not the right place to ask for help because we have a separate topic for this purpose.
however please try to claim your rewards.
I just sent you a small amount of CFG.

5

Thank you very much! It worked!!! You are very kind!

1 Like
6

You are welcome.

Thank you for your question.
I don`t have access to this data, but from public information, i can see that more than +9200 contributors successfully claimed their rewards.

I believe that any claim should be limited in time, otherwise, the claim will never end. The Team efforts can`t be always focused on something that already happened 2 years ago.

1 Like
7

Questions in response to this Centrifuge “RFC: Unclaimed Polkadot Rewards” proposal. I wish to kindly receive individual responses to each itemised question number:

  • 1.1 How specifically will discontinuing the ability of Centrifuge crowloan contributors to claim their rightfully earned CFG token rewards beneficially impact the tokenomics of the Protocol?

    • 1.1.1 How will discontinuing their ability to claim be any different to them becoming disgruntled CFG token holders and governance participants from being forced to claim their CFG token rewards or from finding out at Polkadot and Centrifuge events that those that they referred to the Centrifuge crowdloan lost their CFG rewards, but still not using the CFG tokens that they claimed?
    • 1.1.2 Would it beneficially impact the tokenomics of the Protocol to create a proposal to automatically delegate or discontinue the voting power of any Centrifuge accounts that were not “active” in protocol governance or similar after giving them an ample time to do so “to help shape the future of Centrifuge through active participation and voting”?

  • 2.1 What are the significant updates through the leasing period to the CFG Protocol and the CFG network through Runtime Upgrades and Polkadot updates, which entailed changes, unexpected bugs, and errors, and that specifically affected the Centrifuge crowdloan modules? References: “crowdloan-reward”, “crowdloan-claim”, and “claims” pallets at centrifuge-chain/pallets at main · centrifuge/centrifuge-chain · GitHub

    • 2.1.1 Please kindly provide an estimated cost breakdown of retrospective hours that were involved during the leasing period in making the changes, fixing unexpected bugs, and errors, associated with the Centrifuge crowdloan.

  • 2.2 How many Centrifuge crowdloan contributors have still not claimed their CFG token rewards?

    • 2.2.1 How many CFG tokens have not yet been claimed by all the Centrifuge crowdloan contributors?
    • 2.2.2 Are there still any unresolved technical issues that are preventing Centrifuge crowdloan contributors from claiming their rightful rewards?
    • 2.2.3 Do you know why each of them have not claimed them yet? Do you think they may remember that they are able to claim their CFG rewards from the buzz that gets generated now that Community Memecoin launch marketing campaign | Polkassembly for Lunar Strategy to be funded by the Polkadot treasury to invest in stimulating “growth and excitement during this bull run” has passed? Why don’t you extend the claim period to see if all the buzz is enough to trigger Centrifuge crowdloan contributors to claim their CFG tokens?
    • 2.2.4 Why doesn’t Centrifuge consider creating a proposal to the Polkadot treasury similar to Community Memecoin launch marketing campaign | Polkassembly requesting Polkadot Treasury funding to fund fixing the ongoing changes, unexpected bugs, and errors (if any) in relation to maintaining access to the Centrifuge crowdloan modules for Centrifuge crowdloan contributors that have not yet been able to claim their CFG rewards, and provide an estimated cost breakdown based on the costs that where involved in maintaining it during the lease period?

  • 2.3 What are you going to do with the CFG token rewards that haven’t yet been claimed by Centrifuge crowdloan contributors?

    • 2.3.1 Are you going to forward the unclaimed rewards to the Centrifuge Treasury as a custodian, or store them in their unclaimed Centrifuge crowdloan contributor account and only allow them to “claim” once per year or something so there might be less pressure on engineering to update that functionality as frequently?
      • 2.3.1.1 If you transfer their CFG tokens to the Centrifuge Treasury, how are you going to prevent the Centrifuge Treasury from spending the CFG token rewards that the Centrifuge crowdloan contributors intended to claim but may not have yet been able to? Are they going to be “reserved” and not transferrable, except to one of the Centrifuge crowdloan contributors that hadn’t yet claimed?
    • 2.3.2 What course of action do you propose the affected Centrifuge crowdloan contributors that are unable to claim their CFG token rewards for whatever reason (e.g. for medical reasons) before the date by which you discontinue allowing them to claim their crowdloan rewards?
    • 2.3.3 Are they going to be able to still claim their rewards by creating an on-chain governance proposal requesting their CFG tokens to be transferred from the Centrifuge Treasury to their rightful owners (assuming the Centrifuge Treasury has kept the CFG token rewards in a “reserve”)

  • 2.4 Why do you think the Polkadot network still allows those that participated in the Polkadot sales before 2020 to claim a proportional amount of KSM on the Kusama network by using the claims app Kusama Claims · Polkadot Wiki

    • 2.4.1 Who funds the costs associated with that? Is it the Polkadot Treasury? Why doesn’t a treasury want to fund the cost associated with maintaining the ability for Centrifuge crowdloan contributors to claim their rightful rewards even if they haven’t yet been able to?
    • 2.4.2 How many of those that participated in those Polkadot sales do you think still haven’t claimed their eligible KSM tokens? How any eligible KSM tokens haven’t yet been claimed?

  • 2.5 In your proposal, you state “Throughout the leasing period, the CFG protocol carried out significant updates not only to the CFG network through Runtime Upgrades, but also carried out significant Polkadot updates, which entailed changes and sometimes unexpected bugs, and errors, including errors in claiming crowdloan rewards. In this regards, engineers were forced to fix and be distracted from the development and implementation of new features.”

    • 2.5.1 Wouldn’t you expect that a specific intent and expectation of Centrifuge crowdloan contributors was to be able to, as you say “claiming crowdloan rewards”?
    • 2.5.2 Wouldn’t you expect that a parachain team that was inviting crowdloan contributors (e.g. Centrifuge crowdloan contributors) to lock DOT tokens in their crowdloan to have been able to anticipate that the following would occur during the leasing period when they initially requested DOT tokens from them: “engineers were forced to fix and be distracted from the development and implementation of new features”?

  • 2.6 Do you think there will still be significant updates required now that it has matured? What changes, unexpected bugs, and errors would you expect to specifically affected the Centrifuge crowdloan module in future?

  • 2.7 What additional estimated cost breakdown is involved in continuing allowing Centrifuge crowloan contributors to claim their rightfully earned CFG token rewards per annum?

  • 2.8 Could you kindly provide a copy of the Centrifuge crowdloan Terms and Conditions (if any) that explicitely states the period within which Centrifuge crowdloan contributors were required to claim their CFG tokens prior to their ability to claim their CFG tokens was to be suspended?

    • 2.8.1 Does the period specified in the Centrifuge crowdloan Terms and Conditions, within which they needed to claim their CFG token rewards match the certain period described in this proposal?

  • 2.9 Imagine if crowdloan contributions were received into a multisig (instead of being sent directly into the crowdloan module that automatically returned the DOT contributions to the crowdloan contributors at the end of the lease period). When do you think the parachain would have returned the DOT contributions to the parachain crowdloan contributors if they were received in a Centrifuge multisig?

    • 2.9.1 Do you think the parachain would have automatically returned all the DOT tokens that were contributed in a timely manner at the end of the leasing period on 16th Jan 2024?
    • 2.9.2 Do you think the parachain would have required the crowdloan contributors to first submit a “claim” to have their DOT token contributions returned?
    • 2.9.3 Do you think the parachain would have created a similar proposal to this proposal, and entitled it “RFC: Unclaimed Polkadot Contributions”, that would have proposed to discontinue allowing its parachain crowdloan contributors from being able to “claim” back the DOT tokens that they contributed to their crowdloan and redirect the unclaimed tokens to that parachain’s Treasury or the Polkadot Treasury?

  • 2.10 Isn’t it unfair to force Centrifuge crowdloan contributors to claim their CFG token rewards by a specific date? For example, they may have intentionally been waiting for a specific reason such as for tax purposes, or they may still be experiencing health issues since covid-19.

  • 2.11 Why should Centrifuge crowdloan contributors that “referred” others to contribute to the Centrifuge crowdloan feel like they have to contact them all during the busy Christmas vacation period to spread the news to them that they are now being forced to claim their CFG rewards, before their ability to claim those rewards is discontinued by this proposal, and where they can’t claim the CFG rewards on their behalf (since doing so is a sensitive issue as it would likely triggering a taxable event and a tax obligation on the party who is claiming their CFG tokens), and then feel like they would then need to submit a retroactive class action proposal to the Centrifuge Treasury on behalf of all those parties requesting their CFG tokens to be made available to be claimed.

  • 2.12 Is this proposal just copying the approach to proposals taken by Composable Finance at the following links, where 5FZRGGZV3vmihmnjCmf28pbXYWhpho2NbEV8tMxTzfSaQb6a (@Ezio_Auditore), who appears to be a supporter of that proposal appears to mock crowdloan contributors that still haden’t claimed, stating “old members who contributed don’t seem to have supported the community during the times were hard, if they did they would have claimed by now. This proposal purges fake supporters and simultaneously boosts the holdings of the Picasso Treasury.”. How could the you possibly label any of your Crowdloan contributors as a “fake supporter”, those accounts took a significant opportunity cost and locked up their valuable DOT tokens for 2 years. References:
    * Transfer Unclaimed PICA from the crowdloan to the Treasury | Polkassembly
    * Transfer Unclaimed PICA from the crowdloan to the Treasury | Polkassembly

    • 2.12.1 Are you going to create a similar proposal to this Centrifuge proposal that affects the AIR token rewards that Altair crowdloan contributors are eligible to claim?

  • 2.13 Upon the event of a Centrifuge crowdloan contributor claiming their eligible CFG token rewards, that event may be subject to the subsequent payment of income tax in their jurisdiction based on the value of the CFG tokens at the time that they claim them, similar to receiving salary payments.

    • 2.13.1 Why does the Polkadot Treasury allow Polkadot Fellowship Members to “claim” DOT tokens that stay in their fellowship salary account, as salary payments each month?
    • 2.13.2 Why are Polkadot Fellowship Members allowed to forego claiming their salary in DOT tokens indefinately, but crowdloan contributors are not allowed to forego claiming their crowdloan reward CFG tokens indefinately? Reflecting upon this proposal, wouldn’t it beneficially impact the tokenomics of the Polkadot Protocol if Polkadot Fellowship Members weren’t allowed to forego claiming their salary payments?
    • 2.13.3 Why are the Polkadot Fellowship Members’ salary payments in DOT tokens stay in the fellowship salary account instead of being sent the the Polkadot Treasury? Reference:
    • 2.13.4 Why aren’t Centrifuge crowdloan contributors’ reward payments in CFG tokens that aren’t claimed stored in the unclaimed crowdloan reward account instead of being sent to the Centrifuge Treasury?
    • 2.13.5 Polkadot Fellowship Members that are “active” receive the salary payment that they need to “claim”, and “passive” members are expected to keep their knowledge up to date. During Polkadot 1.x, Centrifuge parachain coretime has been a fixed two-year period on one specific core, however in Polkadot 2.x agile coretime allocation will remove that limitation. Centrifuge engineers have been “active” during Polkadot 1.x and made significant updates through the leasing period to the CFG Protocol and the CFG network through Runtime Upgrades and Polkadot updates, which entailed changes, unexpected bugs, and errors, and that specifically affected the Centrifuge crowdloan modules.
      • 2.13.5.1 Are Centrifuge engineers that are active or passive after the initial Centrifuge leasing period expected to:
        • Keep their knowledge up to date with respect to contributing to Polkadot 1.x Centrifuge crowdloan modules for backward compatibility reasons?
        • Keep their knowledge up to date with respect to contributing to Polkadot 2.x Centrifuge agile coretime?
      • 2.13.5.2 If this proposal passes and Centrifuge removes the crowdloan pallet (modlcc/rewrd) in the upcoming Centrifuge Runtime Upgrade, are Centrifuge engineers that are active or passive after that expected to:
        • Keep their knowledge up to date with respect to contributing to Polkadot 1.x Centrifuge crowdloan modules for backward compatibility reasons?
        • Keep their knowledge up to date with respect to contributing to Polkadot 2.x Centrifuge agile coretime?
1 Like
8

further to 2.11, i just noticed this proposal that was also created during the busy Christmas vacation period CP81: Unclaimed Tinlake Rewards. although it doesn’t affect me and i don’t know anyone who had unclaimed Tinlake rewards, i still don’t believe it is appropriate to time governance proposal that affects such as large amount of CFG tokens during the busy Christmas vacation period: i.e.

  • RFC was posted 15-12-2023 to 22-12-2023
  • Voting period 23-12-2023 to 31-12-2023
  • Final claim period 30-12-2023 to 29-01-2024

For example, in the state of NSW in Australia, some people have children and they have NSW Christmas school holidays 2024 (summer holidays) from 21-12-2023 to 30-01-2024, so you would expect that any parent from NSW who had planned to go on vacation with their kids during the Summer holidays (some vacation involve camping off-the-grid in black spots where there isn’t internet coverage), and may have even started the vacation early to avoid the peak travel period, and where they also had unclaimed Tinlake rewards, would likely have completely overlooked seeing the RFC and voting period, and may not even be available to claim before the cut-off date if they somehow found out about it.

The right to holidays and rest is enshrined in Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Those that have gained eligibility to claim CFG governance tokens shouldn’t feel pressured to sacrifice their “right to holidays” because they are worried that on-chain governance proposals may be enacted to do something like siphon their eligibility to claim their CFG away, which may have been something they were looking forward to doing when they returned from Christmas holidays, with such timing that it coincides with when they and the majority of the human population execute that human right.

9

@ltfschoen Thank you for your interest in this proposal and taking the time to write your questions - below you will find my answer to each of them. For context; the majority of your questions are based on the misconception that unclaimed CFG rewards from the crowdloan will be transferred to the treasury. That is not the case, nor is it stated anywhere in this proposal. If this proposal passes, claiming will be disabled and hence no further tokens will be minted. So these unclaimed rewards do not exist anywhere right now.

Also, you are asking some questions that are directly related to Polkadot (e.g. the Fellowship and their payment) and not Centrifuge (or this proposal); for these questions, please inquire with Polkadot.

The unclaimed rewards are not going to be minted.

It has been almost two years since the contributors were able to claim their rewards so we believe that it is reasonable to propose to discontinue the claiming after the first leasing period has expired and after giving contributors a notice to claim their rewards beforehand. If the token holders disagree with this approach, they are free to vote no to this proposal.

This is outside the scope of and unrelated to this proposal. If you believe such a proposal would benefit the protocol, you are free to bring it up as a topic for discussion. But I personally don’t think such an approach will bring any value to the protocol or the token holders.

You can see all proposals for upgrades/updates on Centrifuge chain in our proposal repository on GitHub here. One example of a bug fixing related to claiming can be found here.

I do not have this information and I don’t see the relevance of this information in the context of this proposal.

In the reply above from @ImdioR, you can see that +9200 wallets already have claimed their rewards - this information is publicly available and you can find it using a blockchain explorer, like Subscan.

I do not have the exact numbers here. They are not in any wallet as the tokens haven’t been minted yet and it also is hard to calculate as there are other factors to take into consideration (referrals and bonuses).

Currently, no.

No, I am not aware of the reasons for why contributors haven’t claimed. Please also see the answer to 1.1.1 for additional context of the background of this proposal. I do not want to speculate as to whether users will be distracted by other ongoing events/proposals in the ecosystem.

This is out of the scope of and unrelated to this proposal. Personally, I don’t see why we should ask the Polkadot community/token holders to fund this.

There are no tokens to transfer to the treasury - please see the response to 1.1.

See reply to 1.1 and 2.3.1.

If this proposal passes, there will be a window of 30 days where the contributors can claim their rewards before claiming is disabled. After that period, it will not be possible to claim the rewards. Please see reply to 1.1.1. in addition to this response.

See reply to 2.3.2.

I cannot answer this question nor was I aware of this. Please direct this query to Polkadot to get clarification for the background of this initiative.

Please see reply to 2.4.

Please see reply to 2.4.

I am not a developer so I cannot answer what they anticipated. But I do know that engineering resources are limited so in order to ship updates/upgrades/new features in a timeline manner, they need to be spent wisely.

See the reply to 2.5.2

I don’t have this information.

There is no such Terms and Conditions - this proposal is made by the GCG and then it is up to the DAO, and eventually all CFG token holders, to decide whether is reasonable. Please also see reply to 1.1.1.

Please see reply to 2.8.

This setup was not up to us decide when the crowdloans were launched. I can’t respond to a hypothetical situation. Again, this is out of the scope and context of this proposal. Feel free to inquire this with Polkadot who set the rules for the crowdloans and parachain auctions.

Please see reply to 2.9.

Please see reply to 2.9.

Please see reply to 2.9.

Personally, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make this proposal after two years. To reiterate; this proposal has not passed and if people find it unfair, they are free to vote no on it. And honestly, I personally don’t think, and hope not, anyone has been so affected by covid for two years that they have not been able to go a website, press a button and type a password.

This proposal was made the 18th January and not during the Christmas vacation period so I don’t understand this question. Besides, to my knowledge, it is not possible for a contributor to contact the referrals as there is no way of checking who used their referral code - even if they did, they would only see their wallet address and would not be able to contact them that way.

No, this proposal is not a copy of the approach you are referring to. I personally wasn’t aware of it before you mentioned it now.

We haven’t considered this option. There will be a formal proposal on this forum if a community member decides to make that proposal. People who contributed to Altair, got their contributed KSM back more than a year ago (October 2022) when the first lease expired.

I am not a tax expert so I can’t speak to this.

This is out of the scope of and unrelated to this proposal - please inquire with Polkadot to get clarificiation around the payment of the Fellowship.

Please see reply to 2.13.1.

Please see reply to 2.13.1.

Please see reply to 1.1.

Please see reply to 2.13.1.

This is out of the scope of and unrelated to this proposal.

1 Like
12

If you need help with claiming please leave a message here: How to claim CFG after making contribution in polkawallet? - #58 by blazer20 or please get in touch with Discord or Centrifuge Support (email).

This is a topic for discussion proposal: Unclaimed Polkadot Rewards

Thank you.

1 Like
13

**This is such a silly proposal I don’t know why anybody will support it. The fact that the tokens are yet to be claimed means that they are effectively out of circulation and they do not negatively affect any holder’s tokens so what is your problem? **

crypto is about freedom, including freedom to leave my tokens unclaimed. Find something better to propose!

14

Good day Ashanti.Kings and welcome.
Please avoid writing all text in bold characters.

what is your problem?

Please read the proposal, because in the proposal is indicated what this proposal solves, how and why.

In case you decide to not claim your tokens this proposal will not affect you in any way.
But please note, that Centrifuge is a DAO where any token holder can propose to the DAO any proposal that follows the Centrifuge Proposal Framework described here.

Ashanti.Kings, following CP29: Founding Documents - Code of Conduct - which was approved by Centrifuge Tokenholders I kindly ask you to be respectful and polite.

Be respectful

  • Be civil. Don’t say anything that a reasonable person would consider rude, offensive, abusive, or anything close to hate speech.
  • Communicate constructively: without attacks or barbed comments.
  • Avoid microaggressions, these are subtle actions or statements that reflect prejudice or discrimination against a particular individual or group.
  • Don’t harass anyone, impersonate people, or make continued one-on-one communication after requests to cease.
1 Like
15

I will first respond to the following initial paragraph of your response, and respond to the some other replies later in separate posts (time permitting).

@ltfschoen Thank you for your interest in this proposal and taking the time to write your questions - below you will find my answer to each of them. For context; the majority of your questions are based on the misconception that unclaimed CFG rewards from the crowdloan will be transferred to the treasury. That is not the case, nor is it stated anywhere in this proposal. If this proposal passes, claiming will be disabled and hence no further tokens will be minted. So these unclaimed rewards do not exist anywhere right now.

In response to your statement that “the majority of …” my “… questions are based on the misconception that unclaimed CFG rewards from the crowdloan will be transferred to the treasury”, I wish to reply that no misconception occurred, your proposal clearly doesn’t mention transferring tokens to the Centrifuge Treasury.

The reason why I mention the option of transferring (after minting) the unclaimed rewards to the Centrifuge Treasury at all, is because I believe that proposals like this change (that affect key stakeholders that have become eligible for rewards from contributing financially to the project), should include an optioneering section and an impact assessment section.

The optioneering section would consider in-depth various alternatives and options for this investment proposal to identify and adequately justify the best or preferred option to present to decision makers.

The impact assessment would follow risk control procedures (identifies risk, and calculates impact, probability, and severity).

The only question that appears to incorrectly imply that your proposal will send the unclaimed crowdloan contributions to the Centrifuge Treasury (which it clearly doesn’t state) is question “2.13.4 Why aren’t Centrifuge crowdloan contributors’ reward payments in CFG tokens that aren’t claimed stored in the unclaimed crowdloan reward account instead of being sent to the Centrifuge Treasury?”. That question should have been question number 2.3.1.x (nested under 2.3.1 and based on the answer to that question).

My only questions that relate to transferring unclaimed rewards to the Centrifuge Treasury was questions 2.3.1, 2.3.1.1, 2.3.3, 2.9.3, and 2.12.

Question 2.3.1 specifically asked whether that would occur, stating “2.3.1 Are you going to forward the unclaimed rewards to the Centrifuge Treasury …”.

Question 2.3.1.1 specifically asked “2.3.1.1 If you transfer their CFG tokens to the Centrifuge Treasury …”.

Question 2.3.3 should have been question number 2.3.1.x (nested under 2.3.1 and based on the answer to that question), as it was only relevant if you answered in the affirmative that you were going to forward the unclaimed rewards to the Centrifuge Treasury.

Question 2.9.3 only mentioned a hypothetical scenario of it occurring.

Question 2.12 asks “2.12 Is this proposal just copying the approach to proposals taken by Composable Finance …”. It is a question, and it doesn’t include a statement saying that i believe that this proposal is the same as their proposal. Their proposal was to both discontinue allowing crowdloan contributors to claim their crowdloan rewards (similar to this proposal) and also transfer the unclaimed tokens to the treasury. Since their proposal various community members have felt the need to create the following proposals to extend the claim period:

I therefore don’t think it’s fair to label the majority of my questions as being based on a misconception.

Also, you are asking some questions that are directly related to Polkadot (e.g. the Fellowship and their payment) and not Centrifuge (or this proposal); for these questions, please inquire with Polkadot.

I realise some of the questions I asked are directly related to Polkadot, but I included them to emphasise that I believe it is grossly unfair to, on the one hand, request funding from contributors (at their opportunity cost) in exchange for a reward, without specifying beforehand that it will ever be necessary for them to claim (mint) those rewards within a specified timeframe or else forfeit their unclaimed rewards (“unclaimed money”).

For example, in Australia, they handle “unclaimed money” as described here, where it is only considered “unclaimed money” after 7 years if the account is inactive, and “unclaimed money” is then transferred to a consolidated revenue fund, which would be similar to transferring “unclaimed money” to the Centrifuge Treasury.

They even maintain and publish a database of “unclaimed money” records to helps people find and claim their lost money so as they say, the “rightful owner can claim their money at any time – there is no time limit.”.

They even allow interest to be payable to the claimant on the “unclaimed money” that they hold, where the interest rate is based on the percentage change in CPI (Consumer Price Index) each financial year.

In your response to my question 1.1.1, you mention that you believe it is “reasonable to propose to discontinue the claiming after the first leasing period has expired and after giving contributors a notice to claim their rewards beforehand. If the token holders disagree with this approach, they are free to vote no to this proposal.” and in your response to my question 1.1 you say that doing so would beneficially impact the tokenomics of the Protocol because their “unclaimed rewards are not going to be minted”.

In response to your response to my question 2.11, the reason I raised that question is because I personally know people who I referred me to the Centrifuge crowdloan (recorded in a log book), and I also personally know people who I referred to the Centrifuge crowdloan (also recorded in a log book). It is not always possible to find the time to contact, follow-up, and even hear back from even people you know personally within the period of time that you want to or need to.

In response to your response to my question 2.8, you say there “is no such” Centrifuge crowdloan Terms and Conditions, that “that explicitely states the period within which Centrifuge crowdloan contributors were required to claim their CFG tokens prior to their ability to claim their CFG tokens was to be suspended”.

I believe that the Centrifuge crowdloan contributors should have been more adequately notified by means of a Centrifuge crowdloan Terms and Conditions document or similar equivalent that at a random time in the future after the distribution of their CFG token rewards that a proposal could be generated that would cause them to have to forfeit those rewards within a 2-3 month period if that proposal were to pass. If that had occurred then I believe less Centrifuge crowdloan contributors would be susceptible to having to unknowingly have to forfeit their rightful claim to the rewards due to a proposal like this passing, and may have even chosen not to contribute to the Centrifuge crowdloan at all, which could have jeopardised Centrifuge obtaining a parachain slot for the lease period.

Some additional questions:

3.1 Why is it a reasonable for Centrifuge to create a proposal that has the purpose of causing Centrifuge crowdloan contributors to have to forfeit their “unclaimed money” from their unclaimed crowdloan rewards within a period of less than 3 months from the date this RFC was created (based on your response to my question 2.3.2) if there isn’t an adequate amount of Centrifuge governance voters aware of the proposal and with sufficient CFG tokens to oppose it within that period?
Note: In response to your response to my question 2.10, I personally know people who were “so affected by covid-19 that they weren’t able to go to a website, press a button and type a password”, because they actually died due to side effects that were triggered by covid-19 preventatives, in fact that happened to a close family member of mine who started experiencing the symptoms from the side effects in 2022 and sadly died late last year.

3.1.1 What if the unthinkable occurred and one of the Centrifuge crowdloan contributors was “so affected by covid-19 that they weren’t able to go to a website, press a button and type a password” because they died before this proposal was created, and their next of kin only gained access to their estate (including the “unclaimed money” of their Centrifuge crowdloan rewards) over 12 months later due to it being complex dealing with their Will and estate? If this proposal were to pass and they were forced to forfeit their “unclaimed money” before their next of kin gained access to the private keys from their estate, would Centrifuge entertain making an exception and restore the ability for their next of kin to claim their “unclaimed money”?

3.1.2 Why wouldn’t it be more reasonable to provide a longer voting period than only 30 days?
3.1.3 Why wouldn’t it be more reasonable to provide a longer RFC period than only 7 days for this proposal?

3.2 Why wouldn’t it be appropriate to add an optioneering section to this proposal and extend the RFC period accordingly, where that section would consider in-depth various alternatives and options for this investment proposal to identify and adequately justify the best or preferred option to present to decision makers.

3.3 Why wouldn’t it be appropriate to add an impact assessment section to this proposal and extend the RFC period accordingly, where that section would follow risk control procedures (identifies risk, and calculates impact, probability, and severity).

3.4 Would it possible to get a suitable Centrifuge team member to respond to my question 2.5.2 (e.g. a Centrifuge team member that was involved in estimating and forecasting of the Centrifuge engineering team work breakdown structure and contingency plan for the parachain lease period given that the Centrifuge crowdloan contributors provided funding towards enabling them to have that parachain lease where they could execute the development and implementation of new features, and support those Centrifuge crowdloan contributors by fixing quote “unexpected bugs, and errors, including errors in claiming crowdloan rewards” where quote “engineers were forced to fix and be distracted from the development and implementation of new features”. Note that those quotes are from the Background section of your proposal.

3.5 In the Background section of your proposal, it states that the CFG protocol carried out “significant updates not only to the CFG network through Runtime Upgrades, but also carried out significant Polkadot updates, which entailed changes and sometimes unexpected bugs, and errors, including errors in claiming crowdloan rewards.”. Was it appropriate to fund these unexpected requirements through a Centrifuge lease period contingency plan funded or similar equivalent by the Centrifuge Treasury even if it negatively impacted Centrifuge Tokenomics?

22

Thank you again for your input.

I respect you view and opinions but I personally do not agree with (the relevance of) some of the statements and comparisons you are making so I will address them below.

It doesn’t mention transferring of tokens to the Centrifuge Treasury because there is no transferring of tokens so why should it be included? I don’t see why mentioning things that are not going to happen are relevant to include.

To my understanding, what the community members are dissatisfied with in this proposal is the fact that no deadline was given for the claiming. That is not the case in this proposal - it is clearly stated that if the proposal passes, there will be a 30 days notice (in addition to the time for the duration of this RFC until the vote has ended).

I personally don’t think it makes sense to compare how one government handles “unclaimed money” with the blockchain space and DAOs. If people wanted to do things the way governments are doing them, then there probably wouldn’t be a need for blockchain based projects, in my opinion.

Besides, one of the main reasons that blockchain wallets exists is to give people self-custody over their funds.

As already mentioned, there was no deadline for claiming at the time of the crowdloan - that is why this proposal is being made now after the first lease has expired and people have received their DOT contributions back. Whether or not people would have contributed, if there had been a deadline for claiming, and “…jeopardised Centrifuge obtaining a parachain slot…” would be speculation, so I cannot comment on that.

I want to make it very clear that is not Centrifuge that is making this proposal - it is the GCG and we are active contributors to the Centrifuge protocol and DAO members. Anyone can make a proposal to the DAO as long as they follow the guidelines and processes and all proposals are voted on by CFG token holders. We always announce all proposals to our community by posting on Discord, Telegram and X and thus very transparent about ongoing proposals and when action is required from token holders and encourage people to participate.

This is obviously an unfortunate situation but I personally think it is a very extreme edge case. I don’t want to sound indifferent or insensitive but if we have to consider extreme edge cases, and other cases like when people are on holiday, Christmas, Easter, summer breaks, special holidays specific for different regions/cultures, then it is impossible to find an appropriate time to make a proposal. I also don’t think that this proposal should deal with issues like ensuring how the next of kin can claim the rewards nor have I to this date encountered any precedence for this in any project in the blockchain space.

As the proposal clearly states, the 7 days for the RFC is the MINIMUM time for all proposals as per our governance process for this type of proposals. However, there is nothing preventing the RFC for being active for longer before moving on to a vote. Many proposals actually do stay in the RFC for a longer period than the minimum 7 days.

The governance process for this proposal would be: RFC (minimum 7 days) → Submission to GitHub → Creation of snapshot vote on OpenSquare (7 days). And only if the proposal passes the OpenSquare snapshot, it will be accepted and there will be a 30 days notice from the day it ends before claiming can be disabled.

But you bring up a good point and I think it makes sense to let this RFC run for longer than 7 days.

1 Like
23

I fully support putting this proposal to a vote.

I was around for when we did the crowdloan for our Polkadot slot. It required a LOT of work — technical work for the claiming process and UI + marketing work for the crowdloan itself. And I still see the many support requests our community and team get for people needing some CFG for fees to claim, the infrastructural maintenance required to keep the claiming interface online, etc. It’s been two years. DOT is returned. That’s enough time.

Having the security of the Polkadot relay chain is great! But moving forward: We don’t have unlimited resources, and we should be putting as much of the resources we do have towards actually building real-world financial products and towards getting more real-world adoption (as we have been) — NOT towards playing further crowdloan games from 2 years ago that are a distraction we cannot afford.

@ImdioR Do you have any data on addresses that have not claimed? How many whales have not claimed, versus people with <$100 worth of CFG to claim? If there’s actually a lot of big holdings not yet claimed, I’d perhaps suggest a 90 day period so we have more time to market this. Otherwise 30 days should do.

2 Likes
24

Hi thanks for @Rhano tagging me on Discord. I need that push sometimes :slight_smile:

I asked in the Discord for the total number of outstanding CFG crowdloan rewards. If someone could provide this, this would be great info to have in deciding this vote.

Many projects limit time on claiming stuff, which I don’t always understand. I agree that 2 years should be enough, but you could in principal support it 2 more years. Since it’s a pallet, a piece of logic that is maintained along the rest of the upgrades and it should require minimal attention

If the pallet is giving the development team every upgrade and maintenance a headache, it would be nice to understand what underlying issues are and why this pallet should be made history other than just blame it on bugs and errors. It’s hard to believe for a team as Centrifuge, that has developed so many advanced pallets and software that the crowdloan pallet is the problem.

A crowdloaner could turn this around and say to the team you guys had 2 years to fix the pallet. For me personally the experience was great, but give a real reason. I would have liked to also have seen this from someone from the development team that could give this vote more body.

Kusama and Polkadot still allow claiming of the tokens available. I’m aware of it not being the same thing a crowdloan vs. crowdfund but as a funder your still promised a return, even though the loan is repaid. It’s nice find sometimes things you weren’t missing.

Don’t know how I would vote on this, but 30 days is short and the amount of total CFG matters, an indication is also good…

1 Like
25

I agree with this too

26

You could also make a final guide for claiming from PolkadotJS and strip away the UI.

Which will allow the team to not maintain the front-end, but all crowdloan claims will still be available.

Think the team is doing stellar work with the front-end apps and designs, but agreed on maintaining the front-end for claiming crowdloan rewards sound end, but that is not what this vote is about.

27

Hello.
In general, we support the proposed initiative, but I have a few additions:

  1. Extend the token claiming deadline from 30 days to 180 days (six months). My rationale: people may face various life situations and reasons that could prevent them from claiming tokens within the initial 30-day period.
  2. Thoroughly communicate the decision to set the deadline and periodically remind the community about it. For instance, if a 180-day deadline is approved, reminders could be sent every month or every two months.

By doing so, you will demonstrate a genuine concern for your community.

Regards.

28

Good day Devin
Thank you for your feedback. It is very important to hear feedback from the Source - k\f member who was at the beginning of the Polkadot Crowdloan.

I don`t have the information about the amount, because this information is not public.
However, from public information, i can see that more than +9200 contributors successfully claimed their rewards.

Agree, that this could be an option.

Good day @Ilhan. Thank you for your feedback.
I think that this is wrong to compare Centrifuge human resources vs Polkadot (over 700 full-time developers) and Kusama.
Those projects can spend 700,000$ just for marketing purposes of the token that still doesn’t even exist. I wish that Centrifuge in the near future will have the same possibility (human and token resources) to spend time and effort on purposes like that.
However, I believe that right now we are far away from this “milestone”.

This claiming period could be revised before submitting the proposal to the Opensquare snapshot vote.
Thank you for your feedback and input.

Good day @n1trog3n
Thank you for your feedback.
Can you please indicate some of these reasons that could prevent claiming during the 2 years since distribution ? I would agree with you if the claiming period was 48 weeks, but over 2 years I personally believe that is more than enough (without entering in super edge and hypothetical cases)

By doing so, you will demonstrate a genuine concern for your community.

This is the RFC phase where everyone can comment, give inputs. The final decision was not made and every token holder in Centrifuge DAO can express their opinion about this proposal.

Not sure if you following our announcement channel, but we always:

  • Inform the Community and all token holders about ALL RFC, Opensquare snapshot voting and on-chain voting
  • We always publish weekly eco-system summaries where all important news and updates are included
  • We always publish a Monthly summary about all changes since 2021:
    image
    image873×927 78.7 KB

    image
    image910×850 72 KB
  • We always announce via Discord, Twitter, Telegram, Gov Forum and even during the Gov Calls.

Without being too pathetic, but I believe that Centrifuge is one of the most transparent and clear in communication, governance processes, and announcement Protocols in the DOT\KSM ecosystem and maybe even outside.

About the duration. I think that we can find a trade-off between 30-180 days if this is general feedback from the community.
Thank you again for your input.

1 Like