Rules that have already been set should not be changed.
New rules only apply to new pools.
1 Like
That is simply stealing. Redistributing whatâs not yours is ridiculous!
this kind of proposal in essence is violation of other peopleâs ownership of those tokens.
if you bank take away all you money in bank if you do not use your money in 1 year, would you believe it is fair?
As a decentrelized proposal, alpaca MUST respect âownershipâ
what is ownership?
if the owner of those token
1: unclaim their token in 1 years, they still have that ownership.
1: unclaim their token in 10 years, they still have that ownership.
1: unclaim their token in 100 years, they still have that ownership.
1: unclaim their token forever, they still have that ownership.
OWNERSHIP must be respected and protected, regardless how many years token not claimed. Just like my money in bank, it is always mine, regardless how many years I do not access them.
2 Likes
@Ariel Hopefully there will be an alpaca blind date post
1 Like
agree!!!
this is stealing!!
ĺŽĺ
¨čľĺă
čżç§čĺć莎ćŹč´¨ä¸ĺ°ąćŻĺˇăć˘ă
Our forum is a place for civil discussion. Everyone is welcome to share their opinions, but please refrain from using accusing words like âstealingâ or ârobbingâ
The purpose of this was to discuss potential opportunity to redistribute some rewards back to the community - not the team. If ultimately the community is not supportive of the idea, it wonât be passed. This is part of the governance process.
You brought up an example of savings in the bank. So letâs explore that. In many cases, bank accounts with no activity become âdormantâ or âinactive.â After a certain period of time. And after a further period of inactive, those funds gets re-allocated for other purposes.
Outside of banking, there is also an example of âreallocationâ of ownership when an owner does not exercise his or her rights. E.g., Adverse Possession where if â⌠the propertyâs owner does not exercise their right to recover their property for a significant period of time, not only is the original owner prevented from exercising their right to exclude, but an entirely new title to the property âsprings upâ in the adverse possessor.â This is a common law that is practiced in many countries. Adverse possession - Wikipedia
7 Likes
Maybe you havenât done the claim yet because is antieconomical and you are waiting that the token price goes up.
For some tokens the apy is low, the locked amount was too little or the lock period too short.
I think we canât assume that a wallet is dormant. Maybe itâs just waiting.
3 Likes
Nice to see the 1st proposal idea, because those would always improve our protocol or our awareness about an important related issue, as is the case now.
There is one point in favor of the mechanism proposed that is actually the reward is NOT oneâs property yet, its a âright toâ. Since we did not clarify things beforehand, I have already turned the point form the first reaction of been a good idea and now I understand that all reward programs must have a time limit for collection, a long time like 24 months or so, in order to give ample time for people to come back and do it. After that time, the rights would âexpireâ, but I would not change the rules on past occurrences.
Thx!
4 Likes
1: most of banks will not take away users money even accounts become âdormantâ or âinactive.â , only limit those account funcitons.
2: even banks âtakewayâ âdormantâ or âinactive.â account money, they DO NOT transfer money ownership to anyone else, instead, they transfer money into government agency for âholdingâ, the account owners can claim back their money from that government agency later on. please refer to below ANZ bank guidline.
3: banks explains what would happen to âdormantâ or âinactiveâ account in the âuser agreementâ and TOLD CUSTOMERS what could happen IN ADVANCE before customers account opening. .
so, do you see difference?
your proposal is taking away someoneâs money without tell owners in advance.( ironically alpaca is so called âdecentralizedâ protocal to protect money ownership against censorship? )
I doposit heavy investoment into governance vault, but I object to this proposal strongly.
option 2, it looks Ok, because customers is told this rule in advance. once they join this game after they understand this rule, it means they accept this rule, I think it should be acceptableâbut I still object to option 2 as well.
Alpaca must respect ownership, regardless how many years account is not accessed.
BTCâ around 5 million BTC is lost and for 6-10 years those lost BTC not accessed, but none would confiscate those ânever touched BTCâ and allocate it to other people.
this is a crypto world concensus â100% ownership protection and 100% against any censorship
leave those unclaimed token untouched for ever, it is alpacaâs promise to âownership protectionâ.
1 Like
Option 1 for previous rewards. Donât confiscate previous rewards and donât put a timeline on them. Thatâs an aggressive change on the rules that can affect Aplacaâs image.
Option 2, strictly for future rewards after rules come into force. Say rules say claim within 1 Year and forfeit to the community thereafter, then that applies only to ranges/pools that come up after this rule comes into force.
Nobody should live in fear that the rules can change to their significant disadvantage in their abscence.
2 Likes
There are other banks and jurisdictions that have different rules from ANZ, which does not retain the right for owners to reclaim. For example, https://www.centralbank.ie/regulation/industry-market-sectors/credit-institutions/other-requirements/dormant-accounts
We have not taken any action or anyoneâs money. If ultimately we were to do something about this, of course, we will make an announcement and leave enough time for people to act. If you refer to my second bullet point under the implementation section in my original post, I clearly stated this.
Thanks for voicing your view and participating in the process. Ultimately, the community will decide the direction we take next. 
2 Likes
Leave it as it is for the actual ownersâŚcoz also alpaca is locked there
I prefer leaving it to the original ownersâŚThats the literal meaning of decentralization and total control over funds . Some people may have invested for the long run maybe 10 years and theyve totally ignored their wallets which is good for active users coz we would always get more future returns before them. Redistributing it will literally be like unstaking their alpaca to lock them in governance. Its sort of stealing qe shouldnt even be voting on something like this coz its common sense
Instead of thinking about giving ourselves and create a dump for partner token, can i suggest that we do the following:
-LP the token and yield farm=> create liquidity for partner token holder
-Original owner still own their proportional portion of LP
-yield/trading fee to be decided via governance vote => some portion to alpaca finance owner/insurance for alpaca finance, some to original token owner.
2 Likes
Agree! It will be good for the economic system cause active users will get more rewards and contribute to the system more. Still pls make lots effort in warning those inactive users to claim their reward or this will affect Alpaca finance reputation in the long run. Thanks
Truly, the unclaimed rewards still belong to the users.
Who in the world could have the evidence that they wonât come back and claim the reward one day?
If we want to change, we should set claimable time for the UPCOMING rewards but not past rewards.
2 Likes
let them there. and i like you let me know alpaca group is good community.
Yes, I cannot agree more.
I suggest that the team can use the rewards to buy alpaca but make the rewards remain claimable for the owners permanently. This way, if the users never claim itâd be like a lockup.
4 Likes