Community Poll- How best to get prizes to small holders

Made a little poll to see how the community feels about recent governance discussion on POOL drip and getting big prizes into the hands of smaller holders.

Should POOL drip be moved to sponsorship?
  • Yes- 100% to sponsorship.
  • Yes- 80/20 sponsorship.
  • Yes- But split differently.
  • No- Keep things as they are.
  • Unsure

0 voters

Should Pooltogether explore having some prizes awarded on a per wallet basis?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Unsure

0 voters

1 Like

I like the “prize per wallet” idea. Could be well combined with the idea of an accumulating Jackpot that has been discussed several times, e.g. here.


Why not something a tiny bit more sophisticated that really benefits small holders:

With the same POOL drip rates extend dripping to sponsorship (if not already, not sure).
If the address holds more than 5% of the total pool deposits, then it is ONLY eligible for POOL drips in sponsorship.

Otherwise you give small holders the benefit of at least having a chance to win but at the same time you slash them by taking away the little amount of POOL they receive which makes them happy and engaged if they do not win (which affects most of them :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:).

It seems to me prize per wallet would be easy to game. There’s no saying how many wallets a single person owns. While in the current state of PT there’s no reason to spread your holdings, implementing prize per wallet would guarantee some players would start multiboxing.

There are measures that can be taken to help with that like having a minimum balance of POOL. We can also try it out and do analysis on the wallets and if the gaming is too much of an issue we can make changes. There are only 1500 addresses in the POOL pool currently.

1 Like

Say the rewards are limited to 10+ POOL. Then if bigWhale has 10000 POOL, what’s stopping them from making 1000 wallets?

Then it’s changed to 20 POOL. bigWhale consolidates his holdings to 500 wallets.

If the per wallet reward is worth it, then there is incentive to game. It’s hard to design around that.

Eligibility based on past participation might work. But that’s not necessarily fair to new entrants.

And this can only work for so long. i.e. if a wallet has to have had 20+ POOL in the POOL pool for 6 months to be eligible, bigWhale may not get rewards right now, but he’ll set up a few dozens 20+ POOL wallets in the POOL pool right now to significantly increase his winnings 6 months from now.

A time-based solution is perhaps a step in the right direction regardless, but I don’t think it is enough.

Do you have better ideas to tackle this problem?

Even if a whale wants to spend the time and gas to create 1000 wallets the odds of a depositor with $1000 will still be improved. There are only 9 wallets with more than 10K POOL in the POOL pool and only 1468 wallets in total. We can also omit wallets that we see evidence of abuse. Shouldn’t be too hard to catch.

Edit. Also, imagine you are a whale who does split into 500 or 1000 wallets and then gas goes back up to $100 per transaction and now they are basically trapped. I don’t think whales will want to take that risk.
I really hope gas never gets back up to that again though. :grimacing:

I did a rough economic analysis of what it costs to cheat here: POOL pool Jackpots - #9 by ageless

I voted unsure because while I would like to get behind this idea, it seems impossible to eradicate any cheating from any design proposed. It’s a matter of how can you minimise cheating to deploy the concept in the best case. And minimising cheating might come at big costs like having an unattractive prize each week.

Seems like introducing some sort of time requirement might help. But ultimately I haven’t seen a satisfactory spec proposed to date that I think won’t be chronically gamed.

I’m a bit uneasy about using central authority to implement this. One thing we could consider is using an arbitrator like kleros where someone could challenge the winner of a ticket if it’s suspected they cheated, but even then you have these following considerations:

What if someone sent POOL to 5 addresses that belonged to their family? Would that be considered cheating? What if someone used exchanges to wash funds and delink addresses? It’s going to cause more problems than it solves having a central authority deciding these things.

On the topic of kleros we could look into using their proof of humanity feature to implement this… random idea.

Here’s the link: https://app.proofofhumanity.id @TheRealTuna what do you think about using something like this? I think it could work like, to be entitled to the special lotto you must be in the humanityDAO registry. That would be really cool, you’d get a tonne of new users straight away from people that have already set up on it. AND it would more or less prevent cheating which is the main reason to use it.


This seems like a really cool way to implement a per wallet prize. I love this idea!

1 Like

Jimmy from Kleros here :wave: , happy to help with this.
This has always been one of the main use cases we envisioned for PoH.


I think that the sybil approach “one wallet = one person” could be enhanced with a Gitcoin’s approach. It means a verified owner would get a bonus (or more chances by a factor x1.5). Altough I enjoy the anonymity while using services in the crypto space, the tradeoff here seems fair.

Maybe we could back our verification bonus on the top of Gitcoin score. The two communities have some strong similarities.

1 Like

I see big whale is getting all 3 prizes in Dai and sometimes in USDC. Why can’t we limit one prize per wallet. Whales don’t create 100s of account just to get a second prize.

Are new users eligible for the airdrop ?

What airdrop are you referencing? The initial airdrop would be for early adopters, and the retro-active airdrop is for some early adopters that were missed in the initial airdrop. There are currently no other planned airdrops.

1 Like

I was referring to what ever airdrop there originally was…. Iv only been here for little over a week and was just asking…. Thank you for replying and filling me in !