Polarized Holdings

#1

I propose that there be the introduction of a smart contract that does two things… 1, keeps track of the top “n” POOL holders and the bottom “n” POOL holders who interact with the platform at least once per month. And 2–this being the big one, rebalances the polarization of tokens between holders. In other words it distributes tokens to the bottom “n” holders (only holders with a balance of at least 1 POOL would be included) in order to maintain an equilibrium where the top holders are only able to have “x”% of the tokens held by the bottom holders. To put it into an example, the smart contract would readjust distribution of POOL holdings by active users by ensuring the participant with the #1 most POOL only holds, for example, 10,000x what the participant with the least number of POOL. This would ensure more fair distribution while refraining from limiting holdings of some.

This equation would only include participants who meet certain criteria (i.e. hold at least X number of POOL, visit the platform at least once every X number of days, and have at least some amount invested in one or more pools. This will limit the number of people that would be considered for the readjustment, it would allow holders to hold as many or few POOL as they wish, and it would help to maintain a sense of fairness and avoid the “elitist wealthy vs. poor” situation that we see IRL. In a sense, this proposal is an application of the readjustments many big companies are enacting regarding pay for their employees.

The smart contract itself would have to keep record of all wallet balances on the snapshot date, in order to evolve its parameters for distribution.

I know this proposal would help those like me who fall on the poorer end of the spectrum, have been involved since nearly day-1, and have been as actively involved as possible, but remain feeling as though my odds on the platform are all but negated by large holders.

1 Like
#2

Great idea. Wealth concentration is a HUGE issue.

#3

while i can appreciate the sentiment this idea brings to the table, i have several counterpoints for you to consider.

  • the distribution of POOL tokens to community members was done in a way that gave small participants significantly more POOL than whales would have gotten if tokens were distributed according to interest/prize contribution. it took into consideration how long you were in a PT pool- not just how much you had. It also rewarded the most active participants that used snapshot votes before there was any incentive to do so.

  • if a proposal like this was to pass, it would signal to whales that contribute the most prize money that their optimal strategy would be to hit a certain threshold of POOL, then split funds/POOL into different wallets/accounts to abuse this. even small fish could set up multiple wallets and accounts to attempt to farm POOL. are you confident you could prevent such abuse?

  • if you were able to prevent abuse, what would prevent the whales from forking PT code, creating a version of PT that doesn’t redistribute tokens, and watching most of the money in PT leave (and likely users that would follow the money)?

2 Likes