Which tokens donated are eligible for GIVbacks?

Following the discussion in the dev daily today we discussed how to fetch reliable price data for tokens in order to calculate GIVbacks earned - this lead to a wider disucssion on if we should allow any ANY ERC-20 token or tokens that are from a generous whitelist that we define, as well as how we would handle donations in tokens not on this whitelist.

If we allow for any ERC-20 token this leaves things fuzzy in terms of price data and how GIVbacks are calculated which may not only frustrate some users but also open up new vectors for gamification of the program.

right now we are proposing to use monoswap and coingecko to provide semi-reliable price data - this seems to be the best solution to implement immediately

I also suggested that we allow users to donate in any ERC-20 token but if the token is not on the whitelist we notify the donor that it will not count towards GIVbacks and provide reference material that could be in our documentation.

So basically we have two questions I’m hoping to get advice on -

  1. Should we create a whitelist of tokens that are eligible for GIVbacks calculations?

  2. If so, how should we handle donations in tokens not on the whitelist?


Adding to this, we are currently now allowing other tokens we did not whitelist before to pass the donations saving flow. Some of these will be saved without a USD value and ETH value of the moment, as our monoswap library doesn’t support those tokens.

What services should we use to get the history price?

Coingecko doesn’t seem that reliable for history price, if you check giveth price 2 days ago in the api, it’s off like by 0.2.

We would run a script to update those tokens usd and eth prices.


Now I just verify this donations, so they just are eligible for givbacks

1 Like

I just wanna add another question:
3- How can we inform user that the token is eligible or not: before donation with a warning, only communicate in a doc?


+1 for displaying a message on the donation page whether or not the input donation will be eligible GIVbacks. Could be wise to also include an asterisk that final GIVbacks distribution is subject to review.

For maintaining a list, perhaps we start by leveraging an actively maintained tokenlist and set up a bot to scrape changes to the tokenlist every 24 hours.
example lists:
xDAI (330 tokens)

zapper’s list (2500 tokens)

coingecko’s list (5500 tokens)

I kinda like using the more extensive lists and then spot checking the distribution before finalizing to ensure there are no suspicious looking GIVback amounts (ie. if somebody is going to earn 10k+ GIV, we should look extra closely at their donation txs)


I hope that we go with what we have prices for this round. We have to of course fix it for GIV with some of the issues we had, but thats the only thing we change retroactively.

But we definitely need to have better communication to the user around GIVbacks… When someone donates to a verified project, if the donation is NOT eligible for GIVbacks, they should get a pop up that tells them they are not getting and click a “Donate Anyway” button. If the donation is eligible for GIVbacks we should keep it flowing and make the tx in metamask… but then we need to tell the user in the tx processing modal that GIVbacks have rounds and they will get their GIVbacks at a later time (a week after the end of the round… There is an issue for this)

Also, it would be good to have the GIVbacks Token List clearly stated here in a forum thread and then every time we want to add to it, we do it via the forum.


I like the idea of leveraging an actively maintained list & using a bot to scrape changes every 24 hrs as per @willy 's comment. Question though… do we trust these lists to only show tokens with some minimum liquidity, for example?

For this round, is it easy for @renjer to take those lists and run checks on all the donations?

Regarding the commuications, I made issues for the pop up and the GIVbacks rounds.

I think though that perhaps it makes more sense to have the whitelist of tokens in our documentation rather than in the forum because a forum thread could get complicated and confusing with multiple adds/comments. The documentation will be cleaner and feel more official.


@Griff @mitch @karmaticacid

These are the donations in last 5 days, as you see almost all of donations are, ETH, GIV, XDAI, HNY, so we can ignore other coins for this round ( You can see the GIV tokens are not verified because they are not in our whitelist, but after deploying new version of impact-graph all of them would be verified


Ok I talked to @griff about this and after re-reading all the comments, I’m proposing this as a summary:

  1. We stick with the tokens we have already on our list (i.e. the drop-down list on the DApp where users can select the donation token) and call this the “whitelist”. This includes a bunch of common tokens, plus partner projects like BRIGHT & NODE. As per Mohammad’s comment, all the tokens donated so far would be part of this list, so we shouldn’t have an issues with the users.
  2. @renjer can send me this list as an excel spreadsheet and I will make a forum post explaining that these are the tokens eligible for GIVbacks
  3. When people want to add tokens they make a comment on that forum post and them we vote as a DAO if we want to add them. We can set up Snapshot for these votes.
  4. I’ll run through the issues I created on the DApp and make sure that all the communications around this is clear, and we add a section about it to the GIVbacks documentation.

Can we call this “good enough for now, safe enough to try”? :slight_smile: Would love to resolve this by the end of tomorrow so we have a week to get everything in order.

Are we ok to move forward for this proposal?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters


Voting yes, as long as we call it the “GIVbacks Token List” or something that doesn’t upset people.

Excited to set up the snapshot to include our GIV Stakers and Hodlers on Mainnet and xDai :smiley:


@karmaticacid Did you tag me on these issues? if not, please do. Thanks :slight_smile: