Retroactive distribution of early LP IDLE tokens to users who missed the deadline

A short while ago the distribution period for early LP rewards ended and remaining funds was transferred back into Ecosystem Fund. Some amount of users missed the deadline and was unable to claim their rewards.

I am one of those users.

I realize that I was the one who dropped the ball on this and that a retroactive distribution would be done at the expense of current holders. Still I though I should check with you all. I never knew there was a deadline as I only use the protocol through the and haven’t been following governance closely.

Any thoughts on this?


Don’t get me wrong, I feel where you’re coming from, but I don’t think anything should be done about this.

If it was your personal funds that were locked/taken, then that’s another story, and of course we would return your funds. BUT this is simply bootstrap rewards that you missed out on collecting.

The team made many many announcements about claiming…on twitter, telegram, discord, and blog. So there was plenty of opportunity to see and claim the rewards. It just shows you didn’t even take the slightest time to even monitor any of their updates, which shows you’re not/weren’t serious about the project.

Also, allowing one person to claim, will create a cascade effect with future people that missed out on rewards, especially after IDLE gets more traction. That means we would have to do this entire process for every single person that missed the deadline.

By the way, I have nothing against you, just being honest about the situation and sharing my opinion.


I take issue with the allegation of not taking the project very seriously. I provided a lot of liquidity one year ago when the risk was high and I still provide a lot of liquidty. That to me is the most fundamental way to be serious about the project.

Also, there might have been warnings elsewhere, but I saw no warnings in the app. What drew me to Idle in the first place was the notion of not having to be active about it.


I feel your pain brother… Been in your shoes before too.
DeFi moves really fast and on top of that you have life happening lol

I will support any retroactive distribution BUT only if you guys agree to be vested for 6 months :wink:

I feel you are a true supporter of the protocol and will not have a problem with keeping your investment for 6 months.

Feel free to join the idle cafe telegram and get to know the rest of the community and shape the future of the protocol!

$IDLE.Café :coffee:
$IDLE Café is your place to discuss idle related stuff!


Thank you for the support on this. My intention was always to hold long term, hence why I didn’t claim sooner.


Honestly, I am concerned it sets a precedent where any people who missed the deadline can come back to claim tokens in the future.

And each time we would need to go through discussion, snapshot, IIP to manage these on an ad hoc basis or change the rules so anyone can which would require us to make a provision for all of the funds not claimed.

1 Like

As a relatively small holder of <700 $idle (about half of that was what I got from the highlander scheme), and wasn’t well versed in crypto, I have to say I don’t think I was on any of the socials, discord, telegram, and don’t follow any of the crypto news sites. I got the info via the Idle mailing list (the one which the UI invites you to join), and admittedly, I have been paying more attention since the governance began.

I’m erring on the side of not supporting this for the reason stated by @Coinballers and @Falcone.

1 Like

I realize that I’m not getting much support here, and that’s fine. If token holders don’t want me to get my early LP claim then that’s their imperative.

I don’t get the problem with setting a precedent, however. Is early LP token reward going to be a recurring event?

Why not just transfer the unclaimed tokens back into the claim contract and extend the deadline to something like a year or two, or remove it completely? Alternatively, create a new claim contract that checks the old one in addition to itself for previous claims.

Was there a lot of unclaimed tokens? If so, that means a lot of people are in a similar a situation as me and communications were sub-optimal. If, however, there was a relatively small amount of tokens remaining, then the price for doing something like this is low to current token holders.

While I can’t argue that this will help the protocol grow, I will point out that the only people who may benefit from this are those who also helped kick this project of the ground by risking their money early - not random freeloaders.

1 Like

Let’s be clear, the governance bootstrapping is over. It was done in a fair manner - I know this from my own experience as I am in no way an Idle insider, yet I had plenty of time to learn of distribution and to claim my share of tokens. I’ve seen high-profile protocols doing their token distribution on a suspiciously compressed schedule (Badger, anyone?), but Idle handled this really well.

So it’s over now. At this point this is a matter of allocating protocol treasury funds and governance bandwidth. Is it a worthy allocation? Not in my opinion.

The only way I can support this is if @late-early-LP bears the cost of preparing and executing on-chain proposal and compensates governance for the bandwidth and resources spent on this.


This happens, crypto moves fast and (we) as a user can never sleep, we are responsible for every action we do in DeFi. In that case, it was a missed deadline to claim funds. This is a common procedure that is not only applied by IDLE. If we open exceptions in my opinion we would need to check for each individual case at one point. Moreover, this was decided and communicated from the beginning.


I agree it sucks to have missed the deadline. I feel for you. But also, I don’t support distributing funds for reasons others have laid out.

1 Like