Accountability: Retroactive Rewards


We have 4% dedicated to the friends & family budget. Who are these people, and why do we need them? What was their token price, and if given free, why was this done? Don’t come with the AXS NFT story, we all know that’s nonsense. Also, “they are all staking”, as some have mentioned… until they’re not. This is another inflationary distribution waiting to happen vs no counter risk. Zero benefit to the DAO.

Retroactive rewards - reward for the earliest backers in the Axie420 period - 4% (40,000,000 MC tokens) - TokenSaver | Address 0x4f6d9907fBc54feDeA9296860d36E14ccC348F7A | Etherscan)

I propose each person involved on this to make a report on what value they added so far and continue to do so, and when they decide to distribute what amount of tokens.



1 Like


I too am concerned about the impending selling pressure this distribution will have. I think 40m tokens are much too high and generous, for pretty much doing nothing.

Arguably, these % sums were decided when MC was a completely different project with a vision more so on being scholar-focused, and not the behemoth that it sets out to be today. This was largely down to the success of the LBP (aka retail), who is going to take the brunt of these free airdrops.

This 40m pool valued at ATH is worth over half a billion USD, which goes right onto retail heads. This is bigger than the market cap of most small-cap crypto projects.

I think this needs to be revisited.



Zoom zoom fren!

First, title changed to: “Accountability Retroactive Rewards”, to avoid misrepresentation of topic.

To clarify: Only 3% has been allocated for future distribution atm.

Furthermore, most retroactive rewards are being staked currently.

These are crypto native people that invested $ millions of dollars worth of ETH (not a friends and family budget). This ETH is now on the DAOs balance sheet. It is what enabled Axie420 to breed Axies, generate profits from P2E operations and grow the player-base. Without these early backers, there would not have been a Merit Circle DAO. Almost all of them are still very active $MC DAO supporters : ) They invested with the the hope to some day get their ETH + profits from Axie operations back. When Axie420 decided to become a DAO, before the seed was even raised, they have been offered tokens or their ETH+ profits back. Almost all of them chose for tokens. Which further shows the current retroactive people believe in the project (they could have taken out ETH with profits). This has always been communicated transparently. To all subsequent early stakeholders in the seed round and to the community.

This makes sense, but what about the fact that P2E is dead horse and primarily profits for MC DAO aren’t axie and kinda never been this way. I can understand that they contributed a lot to the project before but its 3% of total supply which is enormous amount of tokens. 3% of supply was decided to give them I assume without the understanding of where MC could reach as stated above even when MC reach 10$ which is totally doable the value becomes $300 millions and its being distributed to just 17 wallets.

There are definitely true chad believers that stake for 20+ weeks but…

I didn’t do all wallets scan but by checking in some wallets we can clearly see who believe in MC and who don’t. Some of wallets stake for 0 weeks or few weeks only. One wallet is constantly selling by transferring tokens to different wallet $1.85 | Merit Circle (MC) Token Tracker | Etherscan

I think this thread makes sense and some of the wallets should be revised based on their value add. Im almost certain they already got their money back or could get if the want + profits even with current price. But in future those who stake for 0 weeks or few weeks, or even selling now will create additional sell pressure for people who buys at current prices.



Indeed it doesn’t seem they are true believers, and that aside, they can just sell whenever…

I know at least three of these people and addresses myself, and they’re hardly Axie people, just traders

That aside, 3% supply for a bunch of ETH? The team was already rich enough to front any asset themselves, so that’s just a joke excuse.

This is a hobby wallet, and nothing so far has changed that.


Hi folks,

TL:DR: Retroactive rewards folks, we can all be frens, but frens talk with each other. I support the proposal.

I don’t see asking for this kind of report/communication as a breach of contract or anything radical. Anons should stay anon, and I think we can set some reasonable expectations for what should be in a report from a large, vested token holder. That’s just part of decentralization—the more tokens you have (e.g. core contributors, VC, angel investors, etc), the more you should be asked to define your value-add to the DAO and your voting positions. Even if your only value-add is your voting position, you should be asked to state that. Any person or group who can dump price-moving amounts of tokens on the market OR dump DAO decisions on other token holders should have some requirement to communicate in a public forum—even as anon. Just like corporate management would report to the Board and shareholders. Otherwise, the DAO system keeps the centralized control of corporations but with less transparency. Even if the terms of the Axie420 investment didn’t include that kind of transparency, I feel 100% comfortable asking for it now.

Also, I think the DAO should ask for that communication in the spirit of collaboration and mutual benefit. No shame should be put on retroactive rewards holders for making a good investment. The retroactive rewards folks were smart and connected enough to get on the MC cap table early, so (like Mechanism Capital) it would be great to hear how they can help and have already helped MC.

I also want to know how MC can help them in their other projects and pursuits. Mechanism Capital gave a point-by-point roadmap for long-term mutual benefit that was about building and pumping bags. Sad Cat is establishing a brand while putting in serious work for MC. Do I want Mechanism Capital and Sad Cat to thrive in their non-MC pursuits? Definitely. Is it in the interest of MC to let people know what Mechanism and Sad Cat have contributed to MC? Definitely. I’d love to see the retroactive rewards folks follow the example of collaboration set by Sad Cat and Mechanism, and that starts with the basic communication that Honey recommends.

What’s the worst that could happen by asking for a report? Someone (anon or doxxed) saying “You pushed me too far. I’m selling all my MC.” Well, there’s no shame in taking profits—the deal is done and the terms were clear in the GitBook from the beginning. If someone is transparent about wanting out of their position, the win-win is to buy them out of their position now and be done with it. The DAO can just give current MC holders an opportunity to buy retro rewards folks out of their vesting position at a below market price in exchange for staking the newly bought tokens. Then we know who is in and who is out with no hard feelings. If all of that buying out has already happened behind the scenes, awesome. I still like the communication proposal moving forward.




Another big flaw in the voting mechanism we saw currently with people who getting tokens from this pool. Their cost basis is multiple times lower than those bought from open market but the voting power remains the same. We should 100% revise this. This can be a very big problem going forward for DAO as they will have majority of voting power and basically DAO becomes centralized cartel of friends and family. Same goes to upcoming VC tokens releases. We need to cut down their voting power relative to the base price they all paid for tokens. @MC_MARK @Marco