[RFC] Reopen HOP airdrop claim window for previously eligible Discord, Twitter, and Authereum participants who did not submit an address before the DAO was live

This proposal would create a new 60 day window for early Discord and Twitter users to submit claims for the airdrop. The possibility of this extension is included in the original specifications of the airdrop. This proposal would similarly include those who missed the Authereum claim window.

  • The claim window should be reopened for 30 days
  • The claim window should be reopened for 60 days
  • The claim window should be reopened for 90 days

0 voters

This proposal would include those who already qualified for the airdrop but were unable to submit their address before the deadline. This token distribution has already been accounted for and would entail minimal labor cost. Importantly, it would demonstrate Hop to be a DAO that is flexible and supports the users that support it.


  • Reopen a 60 day claim period for early Discord, Twitter, and Authereum users who have already qualified for the airdrop
  • Window will be reopened following a successful vote and two actions by the Hop team
    • An update to pre-existing forms (Hop Exchange, Hop Exchange) to allow new submissions
    • An announcement made through social media to notify users of the reopening
  • A delegate volunteer will privately validate the addresses submitted
  • A list of valid addresses will be sent to the multisig for transfers to be processed using funds already allocated to it that will be reimbursed through the standard refill process
  • Airdrop amounts will be calculated using the pre-existing formula
  • The new airdrop will be sent within 14 days following the end of the 60-day period
  • This proposal does not reclaim any HOP that might still remain to the treasury and does not rule out the possibility for reopening the claim window through future governance actions
  • Claims should be processed twice on a rolling basis (halfway and at the end of the claim period)
  • Claims should only be processed once (only after the close of the claim period)

0 voters


Thanks for your proposal bro

1 Like

This seems like an RFC that should also handle the unclaimed airdrop portion that was included in the original specs of the airdrop, in the same section of the Twitter/Discord mention:

Now that the 6-month period to claim is expired, any remaining tokens can be reclaimed by the DAO. I don’t have a strong opinion about this (yet), but I think reclaiming tokens does make sense and can be partially used to distribute claims in this new window for early Discord/Twitter users.

As for the specs, I don’t really see why claims should be processed twice, but seems like a minor detail in the scheme of things. I would do 60 day window, one claim only after the close of the claim period.


I totally agree it makes sense to take this opportunity to reclaim tokens for the Twitter/Discord/Auth users who won’t be able to claim anyway once this next window closes.

I don’t think we want to reclaim the tokens for protocol users who are still able to claim on their own in this proposal, though. Looking at this Dune dashboard, 80% of the airdrop has been claimed by only 19% of users. We’d get ~$1.5M at the cost of excluding 81% of accounts and people are still continuing to make claims. I think we might want to hold off until more users claim or claims stop coming in personally, but I’m open to disagreement.

I’m also happy to change the proposal to just be at the end, especially given that there doesn’t seem to be a strong consensus in either direction. I included it to be a bit more user-friendly on the assumption there wouldn’t be many claims submitted but I can see it being a small headache for signers to have to do twice.

1 Like

That’s fair, although the bulk of claiming is done, some continue to trickle in. We also can just not do anything right now with reclaiming and revisit in the future knowing that we’ve at least already discussed it. Alternatively, we can set a goal and say we will reclaim after 90% of the airdrop is claimed or something. Hitting 90% may be impossible after a certain amount of time with lost wallets. That all said, I don’t really have a strong opinion.

Either way works on distributions. Small detail, but just doing it once is simpler


The proposal has been updated to reflect the results of the polls and to clarify the process required for facilitating the airdrop.

1 Like

and up for snapshot vote: Snapshot

Voting yes, shows goodwill and is low cost with minimal downside. I’m also glad we’ve now addressed the idea of reclaiming unclaimed distributions and have made a (non) action.


Hello everyone,

Thanks for putting this together.

I wanted to inquire, maybe someone can help me: is there any estimate on how much $HOP could potentially be claimed (maximum) if this proposal were to pass?

From the original airdrop and tokenomics data: Authereum users were allocated 0.5% of supply, and Discord/Twitter users 0.1%. This is a combined 0.6% of total supply, or 6,000,000 $HOP tokens.

Since most users already claimed their HOP airdrop, does anyone know how much of that 6M $HOP tokens remained unclaimed and could potentially enter circulating supply if the proposal were to pass?

More data: there are 500 Discord and 79 Twitter airdrop eligible users. Do we know how many of these 579 did not submit their wallet to claim the airdrop?

I have no visibility about how many Authereum users were eligible or actually did claim. Maybe someone from the team could provide more information?

Tagging relevant people: @max-andrew @fourpoops @cwhinfrey

Thank you!

There’s a Dune dashboard available here that tracks the airdrop but unfortunately excludes those eligible through Discord, Twitter, and Authereum. We could try to write a query to sort out these users to get exact numbers, but we know about 80% of the airdrop had been claimed by protocol users within 6 months. Assuming a similar figure applies, that would put the upper end of potential claims at 1.2M HOP. Realistically, 100% will never be claimed. Assuming, fairly liberally, that 80% of the remaining 20% will be claimed puts us under 1M HOP. I don’t think we’ll get anywhere close to that in reality. These claims will be tracked on a rolling basis and only processed at the end of the 60 days, giving us plenty of time to adjust the multisig holdings regardless.

I’m assuming this concern is rooted in a fear of negative sell pressure, however, which means the information we really need is how airdrops affect token price. The best data we have for that is what happened after our first airdrop, which we can see on a max timeline view on CoinGecko. The price did fall after the airdrop, but quickly rebounded and settled back to at or above the initial offering price from August to October. Clearly many other factors are at play, but the key takeaway is even if the airdrop is dumped below the fair market price, buyers who believe in the project will step in to push the price back to equilibrium.

That said, this discussion is only concerned with the short term. The long term benefits are clear: we’re bringing more users who supported Hop and the team behind it more firmly into the ecosystem, setting an example of Hop doing right by its supporters, and recognizing that this allocation (and a potential extension) was already promised to them, they just missed a deadline. In the long run, a project with this mindset is clearly the one I would be most enthusiastic to continue supporting. By focusing on users and long term growth in the short run, we can expect a higher token price down the line.

1 Like

Hello Max, thanks for all of your replies.

As it is, I don’t view this proposal as a threat to HOP’s price short term, nor is that, either, something that drives me personally in this analysis.

I place a greater importance on long-term value, and engaging with key, relevant Hop Discord or Twitter users who were not able to submit their applications on time seems like a good step in that direction, especially if it was intended that the claim window might be opened again.

My comment is rooted in the fact that we did not at all quantify or expressly make clear the impact of what is being proposed here. Not in amount of users affected by this new claim window, nor by potential quantity of new HOP being distributed or entering circulation.

It is not the same to open a claim window for 2,000,000 people versus opening a claim window for 579 people. I just believe that it’s important to lay out every bit of information available (or estimated), so that there is clarity for delegates at the time to place a vote.

This said, I believe the impact for Twitter/Discord re-claim would be negligible, since there are very few users (579 total).

I don’t have any information about Authereum users, I could not find how many users were eligible originally. What we know is that they were allocated 0.5% of supply, 5M $HOP.

It’s important to debate and lay out as much information as possible on any impacts of any proposals. I’m open to any additional information that might arise before the vote window closes. Assuming all this information is correct, I will be voting yes on this proposal in Snapshot for the reasons expressed above.


I agree with Olimpio here.

It would be really nice to be able to see some more information about the exact amount of HOP that this would make claimable.

It’s a fair question. I wrote this under the assumption we could expect around a hundred claims based on the conversations I’ve had with those I’ve been able to find who would be eligible.

I think the broader point I was trying to make is to raise the question of whether there’s some threshold over which we wouldn’t want to approve this. If there’s not a concern over lasting price impact, no question of whether these users were eligible for this from the beginning, and acknowledgment that these aren’t existing treasury funds, shouldn’t there theoretically be no limit which we’d be ok with?

Regardless, I fully agree that the proposal would be more complete with more information and transparency around the full range of possibilities. I’ll work today to try to add more clarity by searching on chain and reaching out to the core Hop team who will have better insight on the number of eligible Authereum users.

@olimpio @lefterisjp @max-andrew here is some data on the number of addresses originally eligible, addresses in the original airdrop, addresses submitted before the deadline, and addresses submitted since the deadline.

Authereum users
total eligible: 4868
before airdrop: 1031
between airdrop and deadline: 84
after deadline: 17

Discord users
total eligible: 500
before airdrop: 339
between airdrop and deadline: 26
after deadline: 0

Twitter users
total eligible: 79
before airdrop: 43
between airdrop and deadline: 3
after deadline: 0

1 Like

Voted yes. I support the motion for the reasons listed in the proposal. I also volunteer to validate the submissions if this vote is successful.

[Disclaimer: I don’t qualify for the airdrop]

Here are the upper bounds for eligible users per platform and possible amount of HOP:

Authereum: 3753 users,1027 HOP each, 3,854,331 HOP total
Discord: 135 users, 1800 HOP each, 243,000 HOP total
Twitter: 33 users, 1800 HOP each, 59,400 HOP total

Upper bound: 3,921 users, 4,156,731 HOP

Obviously we expect much less claims than this. Following the trends from the first airdrop, we see a more than 10x drop in claims from before the beginning of the airdrop compared to the period including the original window and since the window has closed. This seems to imply that the overwhelming majority of users who planned to claim, claimed relatively quickly and only about 1/10 claimed later. If this holds for the second airdrop, we can roughly guess about 1/10 of the people still eligible will actually claim.

This would bring our estimated amounts to the following:

Authereum: 385k HOP
Discord: 24k HOP
Twitter: 6k HOP

Total: 416k HOP

Thanks to Chris, Miguel, and Shane for helping aggregate this data.

This information would have been beneficial to include sooner and will make an effort to include more data points like this moving forward, @olimpio @lefterisjp

1 Like

Hey @max-andrew @cwhinfrey and @olimpio thanks for the back and forth and the data.

I was torn about what to vote here. Some of the people who delegated tokens to me asked me to vote against since they perceived this as hurting their bags.

I personally have no conflict here as I am not eligible. Neither am I a holder of a lot of HOP. My company, rotki, has but a miniscule amount. So no conflict of interest on my side.

This is why I insisted on some more numbers to make an informed decision. And thanks for providing these numbers. A potential total of 416k HOP is not trivial but as mentioned:

  1. From the claim data we have so far about 1/10 will (probably) be claimed.
  2. These are people who should have been eligible anyway. Not a new round. And extending the airdrop was part of the original rules of the airdrop.

So considering all that I am voting FOR the proposal.