Lockdrop method was designed to be a fair distribution of tokens for all that participated, allowing a large amount of individuals to obtain tokens. Based on the summary stats of the 2nd lockdrop it can be seen that a few accounts locked in access of 1K ethereum which would put those individuals or entities in possession of a large amount of PLM tokens. How decentralized will Plasm when a few accounts hold a large portion of the supply and i’m talking beyond price dumps, in terms of governance or mischievous behavior. You can wonder why an individual would lock 1K eth, pay the opportunity cost to then act maliciously but some people do in fact just have this amount of ethereum at their disposal as a long term hold so they wouldn’t have really paid an opportunity cost to acquire the PLM token by locking their Eth
Agree, for fair distribution it might be worth to set limit in 3rd lockdrop, e.g. prevent locking more then 200 dots from one wallet.
The amount of 200 DOTs in turned out based on assumption that to win a parachain slot in Polkadot cost ~10M usd and if we have the same number of participants as in 2nd lockdrop around 10K it means each participant should invest 200 DOTs (if price will be 5 usd for DOT) to secure a parachain slot.
So are we saying we actually do want to dilute the value of these whales? I’ve not heard this before? So actually a reason for allowing all participants in the lockdrop to now claim their PLM? An interesting thought…
I think we should just stop voting for things that alienate a portion of the community and just work out a solution to reward everyone and move on with bigger things.