Should holders who "stake" their CryptoCitizens have a higher chance of receiving an airdrop?

Raised by yimfinity::

i agree. on a related note, holding (and voting over time just like IRL) is an undervalued aspect of governance. people who have been in the project since the beginning / holding / voting should have on balance a larger impact on the project since they have been contributing to the project longer. i think engagement should be a criteria in determining who benefits as well. people who vote more frequently get rewarded somehow, whether it’s tiebreakers, entries to raffles tied to engagement, etc.)


From patrickamadon#0001:

Here’s how you fix it IMO - staking citizens to earn a token that can be used for raffle tix for future mints, rituals and merch. Remove the random airdrops and redirect those rewards to stakers/long-term believers. No more Hobbs mints to flippers who hold for a week and then dump…


I really support the idea of staking - also interested in having a reward system for those that do, whether that means starting up a token (which could lead to so many different things) or having airdrop rewards go out to stakers to reward/incentivize holders.


Yes, that’s simple and fair. The airdrop should be a complete surprise IMO, not because of trend or pressure, and after Berlin at least.

1 Like

yeah, staking should earn this or something, but some accounts are minting a lot of galacticans specifically that give an unfair advantage in many aspects. how/why do only a few accounts have so many galacticans?

Nope. Let ‘Randomness = Fairness’ be our slogan for these matters. Staking should happen out of commitment and belief. We can discuss staking rewards, however…(let’s make that APY high)

There needs to be a reward system in place. Air drops should be merit based. In my opinion.

I see that my two comments (Jan 25, Feb 18) don’t quite line up, sry. Read Phil’s epic Twtr treatise on staking weeks ago and am ‘along for the ride’, as I have no objections. All bases have been covered imo. I have to say it is refreshing on multiple fronts to see this much-abused / misconstrued topic clarified and thoughtfully explained.

I believe this needs to be looked at more carefully as it may bring non-GTO responses.

  1. It benefits those with more capital, not those more committed. If the intention is to ‘Check someone’s commitment’, you are checking it through financial risk. ‘Align your financial risk with mine, and we can be friends and all benefit’. Most people who are in it, would be in it purely for the financial side. When these types of arb present themself, it’ll attract exploiters not in it for the vision, overall mission, and ultimately, the art.

  2. It doesn’t create a better community. Much like the OG DAOs such as Yearn, many are happy to contribute without pay for long periods of time, just for the vision and community they got to build alongside. By focussing exclusively on a mechanism designed to create more liquidity, it’ll send the DAO on a trajectory of centralisation.

  3. It’s not fun and it’s not a product. Throwing in mechanisms that the wider web3 community uses isn’t necessary just because we settle on ETH. From one of the most interesting decks I’ve come across recently :point_down:t2:


Have the airdrop contract lookup totalTimeHeld and decide on X number of weeks at least 1 CC in each wallet. If they’re flipping, they ain’t gonna get it. Make it a 0% chance.