PASSED: Vesting Params for the Current Contributors

There are 3 main parameters

  1. Initial Distribution
  2. Time Between Distributions
  3. Vesting Length

Initial Distribution

This is the % of the total amount that the Contributors will get up front.

Time Between Distributions

This is the time between distributions. Because we will use rGIV to distribute the tokens the Time should be divisible by 3 months. So the most likely options are 3, 6 or 12 months.

Vesting Length

This is the total time it will take to be completely vested.

Initial Proposal

I propose we have:

  1. Initial Distribution = 20%
  2. Time Between Distributions = 3 months
  3. Vesting Length = 2.5 years (10 distributions)


If a Contributor has a distribution of 100,000 GIV

Initial Distribution = 20,000 GIV
3 month top up = 8,000 GIV

They would get 100k x 20% = 20,000 GIV allocated from this bucket initially, which means 2000 GIV liquid at launch and 18,000 GIV Streamed over the next 5 years. They will likely get other tokens as well from other buckets.

If they continue to contribute to Giveth and get rGiv distribution, then the next round they would get 80,000/10 = 8000 GIV of which 14.5% would be liquid and 75.5% would be added to their Stream.

If the contributor is getting rGIV for every 3 months then they will get 8000 GIV for the next 2.5 years until the last distribution where it would end up being 55% liquid and 45% added to the stream.

If the contributor does not get an rGIV distribution then they will not get their GIV for that distribution and will not qualify for future distributions either… unless there is another deal made.

Spreadsheet for playing

If you don’t have access DM me your email for access :smiley:

1 Like

Would there be a way to get the red highlighted rows showing correct numbers for the D and E columns? Those look a little wacky and are throwing me off from understanding the whole sheet just a bit. Or get approximations for those?

1 Like

I think this is pretty good, but for me the important question to ask is… what will be considered “minimum involvement” to continue to receive your vested GIV?

We said the criteria would be the same as it is to receive rGIV tokens… but I don’t think that is clearly defined either and as more people come into the community (as contributors who might get rGIV) if we don’t have clarity around this, there are no rules really to govern what’s fair. Also there are people w rGIV who are no longer involved, but their votes will be able to influence who gets their vested tokens… We need clear criteria as a guide so people have the appropriate context to vote fairly.

My thoughts on “if this proposal is fair” based on “min involvement criteria” scenarios:

  1. If min involvement looks like “contribute fulltime continuously or you lose your vested tokens” then I would say to bump up the initial allocation a touch to cover that gap sufficiently. Why?

Likely there will be 8-9 months of the “current contributors” time period between the “past contributors” snapshot and the launch… So that 8-9 months is 21-23% of the total 2.5 + x months period. Current contributors should get the % that reflects what they’ve done before launch at least… so we could consider being generous and making this 25%. I think 30% would be too much.

  1. If min involvement is like “come to community calls, stay in the loop, add value some way whether it be by engaging in the forum, voting, dev-ing a little, supporting the community” then I think this is more than fair. Why?

The token allocations for current contributors are kind of reflective to their current involvement/commitment to Giveth. What I outlined above is kind of like a “min contribution” scenario (imo), so that means that people who are doing a ton now and then reduce their contributions somewhat will get a very generous helping of GIV (still seems sort of fair because launching this economy is super critical work). People who are contributing a little now and continue to contribute a little will get a totally fair/reflective amount of GIV. People who contribute a little now and up their value-add after the launch will get GIV from this bucket and then imo should be contenders to add to the “future contributors” bucket (which is a can of worms for later).

Long-winded response, but I think you catch my drift :man_playing_water_polo:


Yes! there were issues in the original sheet that had not added everyone’s numbers correctly, i think you fixed this so i can add the new numbers you have into the sheet.

1 Like

It makes sense to solidify the Governance of rGIV and set expectation on what it takes to get tokens in rGIV before going further.

We have had 3 distributions so far and a fourth is imminent.

I have a few suggestions and would like to hear some feedback:

  1. I suggest we follow the fiebinochi pattern where the newest distribution will be the sum of the last 2 distributions, that way the active members get a majority of the governance power.

This would mean the next distro will be 5555

  1. I also suggest that we burn people’s tokens down to simple numbers so it doesnt get so weird… it will go 5555, 8888, 14443, 23331… or it could just go 5, 8, 13, 21.

  2. I think we should have some standards for contributions as well… and i think they should be light but not so light… it should be enough to be a part time job… an average maybe of over 5 hours a week, and a general understanding of the state of things… this is my proposal of a guideline… but in the end, no matter what the guideline is the DAO would have to vote to approve everyone’s allocation, and it should be a big deal.

  3. Maternity/Paternity leave should be excluded. We should celebrate that magic and let people take the time off without it affecting their vesting/governance power.

  4. We can keep the current Quorum at 20%, but i sort of think we should raise the support required to at least 75%, maybe even 80%… currently it is at 66%

  5. If we want to change the token amount and the support required, its easier to redeploy the DAO


I like Griff’s suggestion for reforging the rDAO, 75% support required is a good pick for me. What would be the merit in changing from the current incremental rGIV distriubtions to a fibonacci sequence? It seems like an unnecessaary complexity.

Asking for a minimum 5 hour/week commitment sounds reasonable. At least to stay on top of the forum and continue to engage, providing knowledge and support to Giveth.

Vesting Proposal

Intial Percent - >=40%
Vesting Schedule - <=2 years
Time between Distributions - 3 months

I looked around at some typical vesting schedules and I can see the intentions behind them but I think we need to consider the unique landscape of blockchain and the features of our token which greatly distinguish it from any sort of precedent around contributor vesting. Even if you’ve been in blockchain for the last year you can see the pace at which things move, it is lightning fast, innovation and development is rapid and constantly changing direction.

For that reason I am strongly in favour of reducing the vesting length. My actual preference would be as low as 1.5 years but I consider the sentiments around discussions I’ve heard so 2 years is an acceptable compromise for my part.

Our token also is especially unique granting yield farming and community governance superpowers. As a current full-time contributor I would like to have the opportunity to adequately leverage the GIVeconomy in all its glory, especially at the beginning when it is the most exciting (and the most rewarding).

I also have a hard time accepting that a huge amount of GIVdrop recipients, most of which I’ve never seen interact with Giveth, will have notably more liquid GIV than I will to leverage on votes in the GIVgarden. I have heard arguments championing the rGIV but this isn’t a robust solution and it inhibits me as an indvidual to fully signal my preference within the community. For this reason I would suggest AT LEAST doubling the intial drop to 40%.

I have no qualms with the 3 months distribution time, I think its a solid number and have no better suggestion.


Here are my thoughts from Griff’s post, the numbers corresponding accordingly:

1. Fibonacci Pattern

I think this is a good idea and I’m in support of it. I think it makes logical sense for current contributors from the current period to have as much power as someone who is no longer contributing but contributed for the past two periods, and I like that those who have been around and are still contributing will still have more voting power than new members. To me that is all logical and seems fair, despite it coming off as complicated due to it being named after a Math Pattern, but I think it makes sense in this situation.

2. Burn Tokens Down to Simple Numbers

I think this would be a good idea and keep things simple, there’s no reason to have thousands for no reason.

4. Maternity/Paternity Leave

+1, totally agree here

4. Minimum Involvement
I agree with Lauren that there has to be a set expectation and standard for minimum involvement criteria, and that to keep it fair we must know that as it will affect the token distribution fairness.

I think a minimum requirement of 5 hours is okay, but I think there should also be a meeting requirement…or else some other way to monitor that they aren’t just hopping into a community call a week and earning as much governing power as the rest. A 5 hour minimum does that, but if they contribute 5 hours one week then only go to the community calls for the next two weeks I’m not sure how to monitor that. I would suggest a 5-10 hour minimum, which I think is reasonable, and a 3 meeting/week minimum. Or 5 hours + 3 meetings. We could play around with the parameters there, but I think including a meeting requirement will ensure they are up to date on our community and governance, and likely one circle (If they attend community, gov, and one other call per week), and I would suggest 5 hours of contributions + 3 meetings attended each week. I also think we would give slack if someone has a busy week or is on a vacation, which I think Giveth is already very good at doing and respectful/understanding of. I don’t think this is an unreasonable expectation when what we are granting is decision making power which is so important for our organization, and I don’t think its too strict to the point where it is a very large barrier to entry.

5 (Quorum) and 6 (Token amount and support required): I have no strong opinions on these and that sounds okay to me

And here’s what I thought about Mitch’s post:

I think this is a very important call out and I agree with Mitch here. I think blockchain does move very quickly and that is an important aspect of the space which might require an adjusted vesting schedule.

I agree here as well. The beginning of the period is where we may see the most exciting part of yield farming and community governance superpowers. Which makes me more in favor of a larger percentage to begin with for current contributors.

I don’t see this as unreliable either, in my opinion, due to the reasons discussed here and in Mitch’s comment.

Thanks for the proposed vesting schedule Mitch, and the thoughtful insight. I think you brought up some very good points I hadn’t thought of before that we should be considering.


Ok I am making a 3rd option that there is 3 choices to choose from

Initial Percent - 30%
Vesting Schedule - 2.5 years
Time between Distributions - 3 months

Every choice has a 3 month cadence for distributions

I made a tab for each choice in the spreadsheet so you can see the outcomes of each choice:

What params do you want for Vesting?

  • 20% upfront, 80% vested over 2.5 years
  • 30% upfront, 70%vested over 2.5 years
  • 40% upfront, 60% vested over 2 years

0 voters


Closing in less than 24 hours during the Governance call!

The people have spoken! 50% took the middle way!

Current Contributors will get 30% of their distribution initially distributed, then in the next 2.5 years there will be 10 distributions after that every 3 months if they get rGIV tokens from the rGIV DAO.

1 Like