A proposal on how to deal with the mistakes of the $FISH airdrop (Airdrop to all voting power instead of voluntarily staked)

Hey all,

according to Babelfish officials (Galileo, Flametale, see their discord) it is very likely that the Fish airdrop was distributed to all voting Power and not just voluntarily staked SOV. This is likely a mistake and stands in contrast to the announcements beforehand like Sovryn and $FISH Pre-Sale & Airdrop FAQ1 .

I’d like to start a discussion on how to deal with this issue. My idea would be: Babelfish is great, we want it to succeed. Keep it as it is, no bad feelings. But for the remaining 50% of the airdrop, that’s vested for 10 months, please make sure that voluntary stakers receive their fair share this time and exlude the rest of the voting power.

I consider the airdrop a gift to all sov stakers and don’t want to give the impression of having claims to more tokens, but the airdrop and token launch both went a bit awry and clear communication and resolution of the potential mood killers should be in everyone’s interest.

How are your thoughts on this?

Best,

Sacro

5 Likes

Ah that’s a bummer. Possibly naive idea but why not just create a new FISH token, airdrop it to the people who should own it, and decide as a community to abandon the old token?

4 Likes

Respectfully, keeping the mistake as is would be an absolute no-go for me.

I want the project to succeed. I assume it was an honest mistake. However, this is a mistake that’s off by potentially 10X. That’s extremely material and in-particular it’s material to the most fervent supporters of the Sovryn protocol, the long-term stakers.

I think any combination of damage control by BabelFish is needed:

  • Create a new token and abandon the old, as Light suggested.

  • Try to recoup the majority of tokens that went to vesting stakers. I pulled the data and there are probably 10 addresses that received the vast, vast majority of $FISH tokens. Those are likely vesting founders that Sovryn realistically would probably know who they are. Maybe as a show of good faith they would reimburse the BabelFish Protocol

  • Pull from BabelFish’s Treasury or Dev Fund to reimburse the mistake.

8 Likes

Completely agree.
~$1MM (2.9MM FISH) was sent around today to Sovryn stakers, the majority of it to the wrong wallets. It needs to be correct. And I have faith that it will.
After all, who would entrust their collateral to Babelfish in the future, if the opening act was to settle a $1.00 obligation with $0.10.
I know the team is working hard on a solution, so let’s see what they come up with.

8 Likes

Regarding incorrect $FISH Airdrop amounts:

After attentive community members pointed out discrepencies in the amounts airdropped yesterday, i followed up directly with the Babelfish team member who wrote the distribution contract, and, indeed, there are discrepencies in the deployment that need to be corrected so that all stakers will receive the correct allotment based on their voting power.

Please stay tuned for a triage report later today explaining exactly how the distribution contract’s math was calculated, and the steps the babelfish team will be taking to address the inconsistencies, and to deliver the correct amount of airdrop fish to SOV stakers.

4 Likes

What are we dealing with here? It would be great to start with a report on the situation as is. Thanks Exiled

I don’t see any obvious problem with Sacro’s proposal. I’d vote in favor of it pending further discussion.

1 Like

First the BCW private sale that confused people about whitelisting their wallet (and makes everyone think there are shady deals behind doors, which is of course suspicious), and now the airdrop. I have staked all my SOV for 3 years, I don’t think this is the way to treat the loyal community. And above all it feels the team is not really transparent.

2 Likes

I understand your frustration with the things you mention. But it would be a lot easier to just pocket tokens than to erroneously distribute them to achieve a concealed embezzlement through “correcting an error”. I don’t think any insinuation or allegation is productive here. Everything is visible on the blockchain and though RSK is painfully unintuitive as the Layer-2 UI is sub-optimal… it’s not as though the data could be truly concealed… only temporarily obscured with futility. I just think you should give the Sovryn team more credit than that. They’re probably doing ok without having to reach into the cookie jar. Just my 2 cents.

1 Like

An explanation of the exact process executed for the airdrop:

  • The airdrop has two steps, one close to TGE and another one month later.

    • Step 1
      • ​​0.21% of all FISH tokens distributed pro rata according to voting power with the snapshot taken from onchain data for June 21, 2021
      • 0.5% of all FISH tokens distributed pro rata according to voting power, with the snapshot taken from onchain data for August 25, 2021
  • Step 2:

    • 0.0233% of all FISH tokens distributed each month for a total of 9 months, pro rata according to voting power, with the snapshot performed on June 21, 2021
    • 0.055% of all FISH tokens distributed each month for a total of 9 months, pro rata according to voting power, with the snapshot performed on August 25, 2021
  • For step 1, the following steps were executed:

    • a script was executed to collect all staking events from the SOV system and extract staking addresses
    • a script was run to extract the voting power from the staking contract (method “getPriorVotes”)
    • The voting power was normalized, and the amounts calculated by the formula: (amount = totalAmount * votingPower / totalVotingPower)
    • This was executed separately for snapshot 1 and snapshot 2 and then tallied.
    • Next a sender contract was deployed to send the amounts to wallets in batches of 100

The team has determined that the method used for calculating the voting power identified the right addresses, however it added the voting power to the vested stake in addition to the part of liquid stake.

To correct this issue, a new script will be run on the snapshots to determine what the discrepency is, in order to determine a way to rectify it. The script is pretty slow, because it has to make about 10,000 queries to the node, and should take about 20 hours to run.

I will post another progress update tomorrow.

Please be patient. The problem has been identified, and will be corrected.

13 Likes

Thanks exiled. It’s a bit of a silly mistake, in that it should have been quite noticeable that just a handful of wallets would receive unrealistically huge proportions of the airdrop. Could have been prevented with a simple self-audit, it seems. But I’m glad for the post-mortem, and hope the discrepancy is easily rectified once known.

7 Likes

I don’t think emission of a new token or any attempt at reverting what is done makes much sense since the coin was traded already, and the current state of distribution influenced choices of hundreds of traders already. The only viable approach now is to wait for the analysis script to assess the damage done and find a non-destructive way to move forward.
When such an event happens it is usually a major setback, at least in price, but the fundamentals are good and it will be reflected, hopefully earlier than we think, since right now holders are a small community of well informed people.

2 Likes

I couldn’t agree more.

We have to be realistic and proceed carefully. At this moment we can only wait for the outcome to have better understanding of the situation.

3 Likes

What will be done to recover the incorrectly distributed tokens (they appear to make up a majority of all distributed $FISH)? Will the team agree to return them or distribute them to voluntary stakers as promised?

Yes, I too agree with @cryptohijack’s assessment… seems to be a shared one.

A staker would want what was promised. That is what he have voted for in the SIP.

The SIP says this :
“Airdrop to Sovryn’s Governance Stakers:
1% pro-rata to fully-vested SOV stakers by voting weight”

I would prefer a solution that reflects closely what was voted for and something that the fully vested sov stakers agree upon. Stakers should not get the short end of the stick again.

With that in mind, I would agree that a solution that hurts deeply only one side is to be avoided.

5 Likes

That’s BCW for you… If SOV wants be taken seriously, you should really consider distancing yourselves from BCW. Anyone who followed their group for long enough know it should not be taken seriously.

1 Like

An update from BabelFish (announcement):

The script took a bit to query thousands of nodes but we are now evaluating the discrepancies and solutions of the initial airdrop. It is in our common interest to do this thoroughly and not hastily. Please allow the team a few more days for official results and amazing updates. Thank you for your patience and understanding! :dolphin:

1 Like

This has nothing to do with BCW and I explained how this happened on yesterdays community call. It was not a dumb easy mistake. It was a mistake that even very experienced devs made because these things look easy but are actually very hard (for reasons I have explained). This will be corrected.

The BabelFish devs don’t deserve grief on this matter.

To clarify - only the people who were supposed to receive $FISH did, nobody else. However, the drop added vested stake for those users. This is a hard to spot mistake, since the system provides no methods to differentiate and it needs to be done manually.

8 Likes

Thanks @yago! Here’s the community call recording in question for anyone who couldn’t listen live, it’s been posted: Sovryn Community Call #24 September 2nd, 2021 - YouTube

2 Likes