CP84: Unclaimed Polkadot Rewards

Centrifuge Governance Proposals
, , , ,
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