Mini airdrop to DAO communities who were missed due to staking or LPing

I’ve generated a list of eligible accounts based on the specifications of the bounty posted in the ShapeShift Discord by @willy two days ago. The list can be found here, and the source code for the script used to generate the list can be found here. The script generates the list of eligible addresses using data from the Etherscan and Covalent APIs along with historical price information from Zerion, and is easy to modify should the community decide later that additional token holders ought to be eligible for the airdrop.


So we now have a candidate list to move this forward, when you get a chance @willy can you post how many addresses we are looking at/how much FOX we would be allocating for this airdrop if we move it forward? Would love to see next steps on moving this governance proposal forward.

I think the airdrop for DeFi users has not to be a ‘mini’, because people that are not eligible because they don’t hold but LP/stake are the true future users of FOX. It’s quite obvious for most people I talked about that subject.

1 Like

Looks like 5700 unique addresses (not including those that already received 200 FOX in the first airdrop), so at 200 FOX each that is 1,140,000 FOX Tokens :partying_face: not bad at all IMO considering the original airdrop was 340M and these are valuable community members that would be great to add to our ranks.

In terms of moving this forward, I was thinking the best way to do this is to deploy new contracts that have a slightly shorter grace period such that the claimable amount depreciates at the same time and rate as the initial airdrop so we can use all of the same UI and avoid muddying up the simple claim flow. The challenge with this is that it would cause issues with users who are already eligible for an airdrop for being ShapeShift or THORChain user for instance, because currently the airdrop UI/UX was built with the assumption that each address will only be eligible for one airdrop amount. While I don’t love this idea, one easy way to solve would be to filter out any addresses that were already included in the original airdrop. This would allow us to simply deploy 1 new airdrop contract and add it to our backend so when a user checks their address it checks all 16 original airdrop contracts as well as the new one.

As always, open to feedback and other ideas :slight_smile:


Wow, that is a lot less unique addresses than I would have expected, but it does make moving forward on this easier. I definitely support doing this and moving forward with it ASAP. I do think we should remove any addresses that already received an airdrop, the idea here was to catch those who would have been eligible due to staking/LPing but were not, not to reward further those who already got an airdrop IMO.

So I like the idea of just deploying a new contract with the unique addresses (e.g. ones not already getting an airdrop) and connect it to our exact same flow that seems both the best and fastest option here. I fully support a proposal on this now that the numbers are clearer.

1 Like

@Ysopaica it is only “mini” due to how massive the original airdrop is, we are not making it any smaller than those who would have otherwise been eligible given adding this wider net to include more folks (e.g. $1500 of one of the tokens described but staked or LP’d).

Surely the yvYFI should be on the YFI list?

Agree with comments re: ALCX - alETH and alUSD are user tokens. ALCX is the governance token and will be either in the ALCX or ALCX/ETH farms.

1 Like

@willy I would also like to comment on the Alchemix inclusion, because to me the above suggested criteria and the list created by @mcchadwick don’t include all ALCX stakers. What I will do is collect all the ALCX contract addresses I think are relevant for this airdrop and post them here for discussion. I will start collecting them now / verify them in their discord.


Thanks Felix :pray: did we miss the ALCX/ETH SLP staking contract?

1 Like

Okay I didn’t get a response on the Alchemix discord exactly, but as far as I can tell the below is correct. There are currently essentially 3 contracts that include ALCX (governance token).

  1. ALCX (solo) staking (0xAB8e74017a8Cc7c15FFcCd726603790d26d7DeCa) → included in the script. This is the general staking pool contract that rewards the ALCX solo farm, but also for the old ALCX/ETH farm. I’ll describe this a bit more below.
  2. ALCX/ETH Sushi staking (0xef0881ec094552b2e128cf945ef17a6752b4ec5d) → not included in the script. This is the new/current ALCX/ETH farm (masterchef v2).
  3. ALCX/ETH SLP (0xC3f279090a47e80990Fe3a9c30d24Cb117EF91a8) → SLP token for ALCX/ETH. These tokens can then be subsequently staked in 0xAB8e74017a8Cc7c15FFcCd726603790d26d7DeCa (old) or 0xef0881ec094552b2e128cf945ef17a6752b4ec5d (new).

The tricky thing is that right before the snapshot Alchemix moved contracts for staking ALCX/ETH - so ideally we need to include both contracts + SLP tokens since the migration was just starting.

So probably the current version of the script is taking the stakers from 0xAB8e74017a8Cc7c15FFcCd726603790d26d7DeCa but not from the new contract. Also, we probably need to confirm if the script takes only the ALCX solo stakers from this contract, or also the ALCX/ETH stakers (since this is the general staking pool/reward contract for both).

In any case, we are currently not including all ALCX/ETH stakers since I don’t see one of my addresses in the CSV file even though 1) it’s not eligible for the current airdrop, and 2) for sure there was >1500 worth of ALCX staked in the ALCX/ETH contract during the snapshot date.

Hope that helps a little bit but let me know if you need some more info. FYI, there are also Pickle farms that include ALCX but I’m not sure what your view is on those for this proposal - do you want to include them or not?

1 Like

Thanks so much @Felix for dropping in here to make sure we get this right for ALCX stakers/LPs.

Alchemix is one of my personal favorite DeFi projects and I want to see us include as many of those folks that we rightfully can within the original threshold.

I hope some of these other communities hop in to make sure we get this list right as possible as well!

@jonisjon Happy to help! As I mentioned in discord to you, I was a big user of Shapeshift before KYC times so I’m very curious to see how this decentralization move works out. Interesting time for you guys & all FOX holders for sure :slight_smile:


Hi Willy It would be cool if people that just brought bitcoin on shapeshift, could be eligible for the airdrop… I brought the Keepkey as well but didn’t activate it. Double miss.

Given the number of addresses we’re talking about, I plan to support this idea once it’s formalized into the proposal.

1 Like

I absolutely support this fairdrop as I have a wallet that holds staked bBADGER tokens that would have been eligible for the initial airdrop.

1 Like

Update: @mcchadwick and I are still pushing this forward and working to get the final airdrop list with all of the above communities, but ran into a hiccup with the Covalent API that they’re fixing. As soon as we can get the final list together, we’ll move forward with a proposal to the DAO requesting the necessary amount of FOX. :soon:


I used a workaround for the Covalent API issue, added accounts from the ALCX/ETH staking contract, and have an updated version of the eligible addresses list available here.
I had also previously missed a detail about the default pagination settings from the API documentation, so that explains the large difference in the length of the two original lists. My updated list contains 26,199 accounts instead of 5,700. (for comparison, Danila’s list contains 20,505 accounts.)


Okay that is a lot more addresses, but also make more sense to me given what I would have expected in the first place, thanks for doing that mcchadwick!

With the updated address count, at 200 fox per, we would be talking 5,239,800 FOX - I still think that is worth it in this case and support this proposal moving forward with the updated list.


Thanks for updating the list @mcchadwick and for the quick maths @jonisjon. I support moving this forward as well and will post the proposal in Boardroom today :rocket:


Update: Still working on getting the list together and making sure it’s solid before proposing to governance. There was some confusion around which liquidity pool contracts should be included that has been worked out. We expect to have the final final final list tomorrow.