CP84: Unclaimed Polkadot Rewards

[n1trog3n]

@ImdioR

Can you please indicate some of these reasons that could prevent claiming during the 2 years since distribution ?

During the crowdloan, was there any information about a future time limit for token claiming? If not, there could be a myriad of reasons why people haven’t done it yet, ranging from sheer laziness to the understanding that they can do it at any time in the future.

@ImdioR

Not sure if you following our announcement channel

I do follow.

@ImdioR

About the duration. I think that we can find a trade-off between 30-180

180 days sounds more reasonable to me. Considering that this has been going on for several years, imposing a limit of 30 or 60 days seems pointless. I’m sure many will take their time to get things sorted.

[ImdioR]

@n1trog3n

I do follow.

In this case, you should be aware of Centrifuge transparency about any governance process steps, actions and communication about any changes.

@n1trog3n

During the crowdloan, was there any information about a future time limit for token claiming?

I don`t recall this.
Even the requirement to cover the transaction cost fees was not written, but this does not mean that claims should be done without paying the fee =)
Centrifuge is the DAO - Decentralized Autonomous Organisation - where the proposals made by Community Members can change the logic and the functionality process of the Protocol.
Starting from the simple increase of transaction fees cost, changing (increasing of Collators monthly rewards and continuing with the add\removing protocol fees (just as examples) the Protocol can be changed and adopted.

Just a common example:

1. When the protocol forks the network and changes the token networks for example from ERC20 to Solana or from Substrate to Cosmos SDK if token holders do not follow the announcement and will not execute the swap the tokens will be simply lost and unusable ( Usually the duration of the possibility of bridge tokens (on own expenses) not exceed 30-60 days).

2. Starkent during the past months executed several upgrades. If I remember correctly, please correct me, the timeline to update the wallets and sign the transaction was about 10-14 days. Everyone who forgot or didn’t pass to Cairo version technically lost even all funds in their wallets.

3. Another recent example. Update of contracts in the protocol between Starknet and MarkerDAO:

Maker

Notification with a duration only of 10 days:

This is an important notice to all DAI users on @Starknet

Native DAI on Starknet is non-upgradable, and as a result, it will stop functioning following the planned network upgrade known as “Regenesis.”

Transition to new bridged DAI:

Following the deprecation of the current DAI version on Starknet due to the Regenesis upgrade, this old DAI on Starknet will be replaced by a new DAI version bridged through Starknet’s standard bridge.
We will keep you updated on the availability and details of this new migration tool within the next 10 days.

So I`m quite surprised with the suggested duration about 180-365 or even 730 days.
Anyway, thank you for your opinion and input.

[n1trog3n]

"@ImdioR, I’m not insisting on exactly 180 days, I just want to give people a chance to claim their tokens I don’t benefit from this in any way under any circumstances.
Okay, let’s set the deadline at 90 days.

[cardinate]

Hello Centrifuge community,

In my opinion, a transition period of 180 days for claiming the Crowdloan tokens makes sense so that every Crowdloan supporter still has enough time.

After the vote of this RFC, the expiring claiming time should then be communicated in all Centrifuge social media communication channels (Discord, Telegram, Twitter, etc.).

A button for claiming the crowdloan tokens for the transition period of 180 days should be displayed on the Centrifuge website.

I think the solution is a good compromise for tempers that are heated in both directions

Best regards
cardinate / Altair Collator

[Rhano]

Thanks for tuning in @Ilhan!

Just wanted to address one of your points regarding maintaining the claiming pallet.

@Ilhan

Since it’s a pallet, a piece of logic that is maintained along the rest of the upgrades and it should require minimal attention

I listened to the AAG #100 from the Kusamarian where they actually discussed this proposal and I heard Bill Laboon acknowledge how much work still is required from the engineers to ensure that claiming still is working on the relay chains so I don’t think we are talking about minimal attention to ensure the claiming functionality going forward. You can watch that particular clip here.

I am not an engineer so I cannot expand further on the topic but Ivan and I do see the resources being spent on maintaining it as we report these kind of issues to them after feedback from our users on Discord - and we do believe these resources could be spent better on developing/improving the infrastructure of our protocol.

Especially if we want to stay competitive in this space!

My takeaway from the comments in this proposal is that people do not generally disagree with the proposal and the approach - but express a concern about whether there will be enough time for people to claim. Granted, initially there was no expiry date mentioned for the claiming but I personally think it is reasonable to propose this after two years and the initial lease has expired.

We are always open for feedback and suggestions to improvements so the notice period can be revised. That is the whole purpose of an RFC and our governance process in general - and also why I pinged all collators on Discord and encouraged them to engage in this discussion .

[ltfschoen]

@ImdioR

Even the requirement to cover the transaction cost fees was not written, but this does not mean that claims should be done without paying the fee =)

Why did Centrifuge choose the approach A) listed below?

A) Centrifuge crowdloan contributors being required to manually claim their rewards, and requiring them to figure out how to transfer a balance of CFG tokens to the account they contributed with before even being able to claim, rather than;
B) Centrifuge just writing a script to send the rewards to all relevant contributors in bulk and Centrifuge covering the cost of the overall transaction fee.

Wouldn’t approach B) have been more convenient and cost effective than approach A) for both the Centrifuge team and the Centrifuge crowdloan contributors for the reasons 1) to 5) listed below?

1. No action being from Centrifuge crowdloan contributors to receive their rewards
2. Centrifuge treasury would have just had to pay for the transaction fees, at an earlier time when they were cheaper too before the transaction fees were significantly increased, and;
   • After doing that there wouldn’t have been any more Centrifuge crowdloan contributors that still needed to receive their rewards, and Centrifuge could have avoided the cost of having to maintain the related crowdloan modules anymore a long time ago.
3. Guaranteed that all contributors would receive their rewards without the risk of being subject to a proposal like this that if approved would stop them from being able to receive their rewards after a specific date, even though there wasn’t a specific date mentioned when they originally contributed to the crowdloan.
4. Avoided Centrifuge crowdloan contributors having to go through the frustrating UX of:
5. Centrifuge crowdloan contributors that tried to claim their rewards most likely encountered the error message that they didn’t have enough CFG tokens to pay the transaction fee to claim their rewards, and then:
   a) Perhaps they didn’t see the error message appear, or saw the error message, and then incorrectly assumed that the error meant that claims still weren’t enabled, and in either case just decided to keep waiting indefinitely until the claim process worked, and to choose to try to claim again at a random date in the future, or;
   b) If they didn’t make the wrong assumption about the error message they may have asked the Centrifuge team in Discord for clarification of what it meant and what they needed to do,
   • Centrifuge team then would have kindly would have paid their transaction fee, but by doing that they would have had to reveal their Discord identity to the Centrifuge team (which they may not have even realised), which could then be associated with their Centrifuge account, or;
   • If they didn’t want to reveal their identity then they would have had to buy CFG tokens or transfer existing CFG tokens that they may have had to the account that was trying to claim the rewards for the claim process to work.

Update: This following paragraph actually appears to be false after a bit more investigating
Note that other parachains that received crowdloans from contributors on the Polkadot and Kusama networks just handled transferring the token rewards to the relevant contributors and paid for the transaction fees, which guaranteed that the crowdloan contributor would receive their reward, and required no action from the crowdloan contributors to have to follow any claims process or be subjected to having to claim before a specific date.

[Rhano]

@ltfschoen I think you are slowly moving away from the content of this proposal and instead asking questions about why things were not done differently - I don’t see how that is feedback on this specific proposal.

I will, however, clarify a couple of your questions.

@ltfschoen

B) Centrifuge just writing a script to send the rewards to all relevant contributors in bulk and Centrifuge covering the cost of the overall transaction fee.

We actually did this! The problem was that a few months later, a proposal was made to increase the fees on Centrifuge chain and it was implemented with Runtime Upgrade 1012 - see description of the proposal here. This meant that the funds sent with the script were now insufficient so if users needed CFG to cover the fees, the moderators on Discord or here on the forum would send it to them.

@ltfschoen

Centrifuge crowdloan contributors that tried to claim their rewards most likely encountered the error message that they didn’t have enough CFG tokens to pay the transaction fee to claim their rewards, and then:
a) Perhaps they didn’t see the error message appear, or saw the error message, and then incorrectly assumed that the error meant that claims still weren’t enabled, and in either case just decided to keep waiting indefinitely until the claim process worked, and to choose to try to claim again at a random date in the future, or;
b) If they didn’t make the wrong assumption about the error message they may have asked the Centrifuge team in Discord for clarification of what it meant and what they needed to do,

• Centrifuge team then would have kindly would have paid their transaction fee, but by doing that they would have had to reveal their Discord identity to the Centrifuge team (which they may not have even realised), which could then be associated with their Centrifuge account, or;
• If they didn’t want to reveal their identity then they would have had to buy CFG tokens or transfer existing CFG tokens that they may have had to the account that was trying to claim the rewards for the claim process to work.

Yes, they most likely encountered this error if they didn’t have sufficient CFG in their wallet to cover the fees - but now you are speculating as to why users may not have claimed their rewards - let’s stick to facts. Based on the amount of inquiries we have received on both Discord and here on the forum, I personally don’t recognise this scenario and I, together with @ImdioR, have been involved in this process first hand since claiming was enabled. Combined among the moderators on Discord and here on the forum, we have manually transferred to +1000 users to help them claim and not one has expressed concern about revealing their identity/wallet. Check the channel history on Discord or this thread.

@ltfschoen

Note that other parachains that received crowdloans from contributors on the Polkadot and Kusama networks just handled transferring the token rewards to the relevant contributors and paid for the transaction fees, which guaranteed that the crowdloan contributor would receive their reward, and required no action from the crowdloan contributors to have to follow any claims process or be subjected to having to claim before a specific date.

This contradicts what you write here:

@ltfschoen

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

But I will kindly ask you to stay on topic in this proposal and otherwise create a new thread if you wish to continue the discussion and ask questions like “What if…?” or “Why wasn’t it done this way?”.

[ImdioR]

Good day @ltfschoen thank you for your comment.

@ltfschoen

Why did Centrifuge choose the approach A) listed below?

I dont have the answer to this question, because im not a part of Centrifuge Developers nor I was involved in development\writing the mechanism of distribution. The best way to get the answer - contact Developers or CNF.

@ltfschoen

Note that other parachains that received crowdloans from contributors on the Polkadot and Kusama networks just handled transferring the token rewards to the relevant contributors and paid for the transaction fees, which guaranteed that the crowdloan contributor would receive their reward, and required no action from the crowdloan contributors to have to follow any claims process or be subjected to having to claim before a specific date.

With “Note that other parachains” are you referring to all Polkadot and Kusama parachains or some project in particular?

As well as I know several parachains require manual claiming and manual wallet providing. At this moment I can link some of them (where I personally participated):

• Kintsugi
• Interlay
• Bit.Country (K)
• Moonbeam
• PolkaDex
• Parallel Finance

All of them required manual claiming of rewards…

I would say, that this is quite a few names, so writing that "Other parachains are just handled transferring the token rewards to the relevant contributors " I would say that this is not really what happened in reality and every Protocol developed and implemented different claiming mechanism\options.

I think that each project had its own vision and good reasons for the implementation of certain mechanisms, which I cannot and will not undertake to judge.

[ltfschoen]

I dont have the answer to this question, because i m not a part of Centrifuge Developers nor I was involved in development\writing the mechanism of distribution. The best way to get the answer - contact Developers or CNF.

Centrifuge developers are key stakeholders in the outcome of this proposal, so if they’re the best to provide an answer they’re welcome to respond to this message or notify another Centrifuge team member that is.

With “Note that other parachains” are you referring to all Polkadot and Kusama parachains or some project in particular?

That statement that I wrote quote “Note that other parachains …” actually seems to have turned out to be baseless after double checking after your post. The ones I thought had been automatically sent to me actually weren’t. I contributed to a lot of crowdloans, some allowed claiming at the time of the crowdloan, but some didn’t have the process of claiming ready at the time so I had to keep checking if it was available, and I forgot that I also bought many crowdloan tokens separately from exchanges to dollar cost average. So I wish to retract that statement because I actually can’t find evidence that it’s true.

[ImdioR]

@ltfschoen

That statement that I wrote quote “Note that other parachains …” actually seems to have turned out to be baseless after double checking after your post. The ones I thought had been automatically sent to me actually weren’t. I contributed to a lot of crowdloans, some allowed claiming at the time of the crowdloan, but some didn’t have the process of claiming ready at the time so I had to keep checking if it was available, and I forgot that I also bought many crowdloan tokens separately from exchanges to dollar cost average. So I wish to retract that statement because I actually can’t find evidence that it’s true.

Don`t worry and thank you for your feedback and input.
Healthy and reasoned criticism, as well as well-reasoned advice, is always useful.

[ImdioR]

Good day
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

The next step: Submit this proposal to Opensquare Snapshot voting.

[Rhano]

The snapshot for CP84: Unclaimed Polkadot Rewards has been created on OpenSquare and will start at 14.00 CET today.

Please vote on the proposal here when it’s live: CP84: Unclaimed Polkadot Rewards

The vote is open until 5th February 14.00 CET (7 days voting time).

[Rhano]

The OpenSquare snapshot vote for CP84 has passed.

There is now a 60 day window, counting from today, for crowdloan participants to claim their CFG rewards before they will be disabled. That means that the deadline for claiming is April 5, 2024.

Thank you for voting everyone.

[ImdioR]

Good day, community!

After the end of the claiming period 5th of April following CP84: Unclaimed Polkadot Rewards that was approved by Centrifuge DAO on the date of 8th of April 2024 21:52 CET time the claiming was discontinued as voted on in CP84.

The claiming of Polkadot Rewards is disabled now and any additional claiming is not possible anymore.

[santiago]

Still you give bad information about closing the option to claim rewards.

CTG tokens are hold for many holders, but most of the tokens that can define a voting are made by the same holders in every voting.

So this voting was agree by the Team of Centrifugue and this is the worst thing you can do.

You, as member of the Team, agree with this voting?
Where is te opinion of the Team about this?

Do you agree with a project like this?

[ImdioR]

Good day @santiago

@santiago

You, as member of the Team, agree with this voting?

I`m not a team member.

@santiago

Still you give bad information about closing the option to claim rewards.

The information about this was discussed on the forum during the Request For Comments, this topic was also part of Governance Call and even more this proposal was voted publicly on OpenSquare where all token holders were able to vote: Aye, Nay or abstain.

@santiago

So this voting was agree by the Team of Centrifugue and this is the worst thing you can do.

This proposal was approved by CFG token holders.
As a token holder you could participate in all proposals in different stages:

• During the RFC Stage - by providing your feedback, opinion or suggestions
• During the Governance call
• With voting on Opensquare - with deciding if the proposal should be approved or not yet.

Just an example (Telegram):
Started in November 2023 and finished April 2024 (more than 15 announcements)

Discord: more than 30 announcements + in all language channels the announcement was translated!

All information was delivered in time and in most transparent way across all channels: Telegram, Twitter, Discord, Linkedin

@santiago

Where is te opinion of the Team about this?

Centrifuge Protocol is the DAO and if anyone from the Core Team wants to comment, they just comment, but nobody can force them to do this.

[schulech]

I also don’t get this information, simply because I do not use the channels and I do not inform myself often. My fault, but I disagree that I loose my rewards. Why should that happen? I belive in this project and like to invest, but I assumed that I get the reward automatically, for sure not that someone vote that I cannot claim my rewards anymore. In that case, you can send the coins to parallel but just delete the option to claim, is an unfair action. As a voting community I would also vote for that (everyone that votes, has already claimen), but why vote for such a thing? I kindly ask you to reopen the possibility to claim. Many thanks