Ayos1

@cryptocevo What are your high conviction play? It doesnt matter is it something big like eth that won’t do big multiples or small that can do 100x. I’m just curious at this point what are the coins you have biggest confidence.

As we approach the endgame of LayerZero, I have put together some things that seem to be a common issue for the community. I understand this will most likely fall onto deaf ears this close to the drop, but if you care about your protocol, then you may consider some of these things: 1) Total Drop The initial drop is set to be a total of 8.5% with a allocation of 23.5% over the next 2/3 years. 5% Core and 3% RFP. LayerZero has been around for over 2 years now, with over 6million users so the first drop should be the largest in order to give them all a fair chance. This time and usage will never be replicated again so its only logical to drop a lot more for the initial drop. It also gives potential buyers a better MCAP/FDMC ratio when deciding if they want to invest or not. I thought we were over the low float 11x MCAP/FDMC launches? Open CMC and tell me if you want to invest in these low float launches... 2) Weak user differentiation and lack of criteria diversity Currently the criteria does not differentiate between a user who paid the same in fee's a day before snapshot and a loyal user who used it week by week for 12 months straight to bridge funds. You should reward recurring and loyal users by making this a scaling system. The lack of diversity with the criteria also is problematic, fee's paid should be part of a larger algorithm that incorporates other aspects of the protocol. Transactons, volume, recurring usage, source chains are just some basic examples that every single user has done. Yes I know "RFP SOLVES VOLUME", it really doesn't when you look at some of the submissions from these protocols. They didn't spend more than 5minutes and didn't even use anything related to LayerZero. Simple example to explain this point, User A : Bridged Gh0stly NFT 5 times within a single day to ETH (no multiplier) and never touched LayerZero again User B : Bridges $100,000 every 2 weeks for 10 months (20 txns) in a row between ARB/BASE/BSC/OP. With the current Criteria, the User B will may not qualify for Core drop but User A will receive a massive reward. If you could pick who you wanted on your protocol and scale it up, who would you choose? 3) Linear Distribution Open the fee's paid Dune dashboard and you will see that $30 gets you into the top 1 million wallets for fees paid. What does the top 500,000 wallet look like? It has paid only $22 more. When the vast bulk of your users are extremely close to each other in fees then your distibution should be centred around them, not scale linear to try appeal to the 0.2% of users who spent thousands in fees. I know we have come a long way from 25-50k min/max, but this still does not solve the problem. Again sorry for my ultimatum thinking but here's one using the models from @PrimordialAA : x.com/PrimordialAA/s… Entries with 50-100 tokens: 274,359 (Sum: 18,625,838.81) Entries with > 1000 - 10000 tokens: 6,861 (Sum: 13,069,599.75) Entries with > 10000 tokens: 234 (Sum: 5,974,648.23) Following this reward distribution, you value the top 7000 users MORE than the 274,000? I know I would much rather have a protocol of full of option 1 wallets than option 2. That is what you are implying by giving them more rewards... Solution is to scale the linear model with dimishing returns to reward 99.5% of your users at a better rate than the 0.5% of users. Basically TLDR: Reward users of the protocol at the same rate to which you value them. If you value the top 7000 wallets more than the bottom 300,000 (random numbers) then so be it. That's it, thanks for coming to my Ted talk. Look forward to the launch :)

@PrimordialAA Is there an allocation for discord roles, Bryan? 🤔