Discussion to extend vesting schedule for locked stakeholders

💬 Governance Discussions
43

As early investors, we (Daemon Ventures) fully support this proposal.

Pushing out the vesting period by one year is a difficult but necessary decision to make, one that we believe best positions Lava for growth over the coming months. Lava has already onboarded over 40 chains, launched 10+ incentive pools, and has served millions of users with no downtime. The team has delivered these remarkable milestones in a short amount of time. We are confident that they will continue to onboard new users, drive demand, and expand the ecosystem over the coming months. This proposal will contribute to a stable token environment to best capitalize on their efforts.

44

kjnodes does not support the proposal of all investors’ token lock-up being extended.
We believe that unlocking is a signal of healthy tokenomics, and we believe that staking is a signal by token holders that they trust the value of the token.

If the goal is to acquire more capital, then we can understand it. Any new investors would not want a risk that earlier investors come in and dump their tokens/shares. Therefore, preexisting investors having a lock-in eases new investors’ minds. As result, this is often seen for ICOs and IPOs.

However, if the goal is to obtain an exchange listing and have a stable price for the years to come, then we argue below that the proposal actually has potential of backfiring.

Keep in mind that one of the major things that exchanges and traders often want is liquidity. Traders generally want to have a small spread, which is provided via a healthy market depth.

If currently the liquidity does not exist, then some early investors could see it as an opportunity to provide liquidity and benefit on swap fees. The unlocked tokens could therefore strengthen Lava’s market position and provide more balanced asset allocation in the pools.

Furthermore, we believe in current market situation early investors are less likely to directly sell unlocks. Even if the investor wants to exit, they may believe the bull market will provide better opportunities down the line, and therefore may opt to hold.

We believe that if the lock-up is extended, then there is a higher risk that small early investors may be forced to dump tokens right upon unlock. For them, the extension may cause undue strain, which could result in them being forced to sell upon unlock next year.

Extending the lock-up could therefore result in a bear or sideways market suddenly receiving artificial sell pressure – pushing down the price one year in the future. The market is better positioned to withstand such activity currently.

45

Not sure how many people use AI to create their response but let’s face it: The “rationale” is not sufficient to deviate from initial TGE. If people come up with more logic let’s talk, if not, don’t change as market are ready for good projects.

46

Well, suppose the key factor here, which could address the ‘rationale,’ is the technical development according to the roadmap, as it is crucial for the upcoming year.

47

Well this wasn’t the key “rationale” …at least it was stated not having the “ability to reach the most favorable listing venues”. This is sooooo vague.

48

The third point reflects roadmap and isn’t vague compared with the first two, so I’d say it’s quite “rationale”:

49

I get this but as long as you can’t quantify that special point it is only “blurb” and maybe an excuse. We have the feeling that there’re are other reasons for the delay not clearly stated. But as you see we go in circles and everything has been already stated in the whole thread. Let’s see. Wish all of us luck for the decision process.

1 Like
50

Price reflects much better than rest of the points
When the proposal was suggested Lava’s price pumped 50%, meaning market is very receptive

Usually when retail knows VCs have long cliff they know VCs will not dump on them, which by the way, is also the reason why high FDV low float tokens don’t work

If price is kept healthy, CEX listing is imminent

Went through the disagreeing opinion think quite a few a smaller investor which want quick cash, this is something we don’t want as small retail investors in the liquid market

51

This is the time for the ‘right wind’ aka bull scenario, that will go on for another 5-6 months approx. After a year we will be in a bear (most likely) and the team may still have a roadmap that needs execution and thus another proposal for lockup. Instead, talk to investors and give them confidence to stake on the open platform that Lava is created for the public. I urge @tribecapital to stake the tokens they receive from the unlocks, rather than keep extending it. Thats a better way to support the project and the team, as that reflects to on-chain data, something that retail investors are interested in.

52

Response to Token Unlock Extension Proposal

TL:DR

DuckDAO votes to proceed with the original plan.

Executive Summary

As early investors through DuckDAO who helped build Lava’s foundation, we must address the proposed token unlock extension with facts and evidence.

Current Performance Metrics

Lava has achieved remarkable success:

  • $2M in annual recurring revenue
  • 6 million monthly users
  • Partnerships with Google and eToro
  • Integration across 40+ blockchains

These metrics demonstrate Lava’s robust market position under the current structure.

Key Concerns

1. Timeline Disruption

The existing 24-month linear vesting schedule already provides one of the industry’s longest stability periods. An additional year is unnecessary given Lava’s proven performance.

2. Market Impact

  • Natural price discovery and token distribution are essential market mechanisms
  • Delaying these processes could harm long-term market confidence rather than protect it
  • Current success metrics suggest readiness for original unlock schedule

3. Community Trust

  • Original January unlock date shaped community investment decisions
  • Late-stage changes to core terms undermine governance process
  • Success metrics don’t support need for timeline extension

Proposed Alternative

Maintain Original Schedule

  1. Keep existing 24-month linear vesting for stability
  2. Build on proven market position
  3. Allow natural market dynamics to validate Lava’s strength

Supporting Evidence

  • $2M ARR demonstrates business model validation
  • 6 million users shows strong market adoption
  • Multiple major partnerships confirm industry credibility
  • 40+ blockchain integrations prove technical capability

Conclusion

We invested in Lava because we believed in its potential. That belief has been validated by exceptional results. Now is the time to trust in those achievements and proceed with our established timeline.

With respect and continued commitment to Lava’s success,
DuckDAO Community

1 Like
53

This is a fair point, and I agree it could boost confidence in the project. However, to prevent investor’s sell-offs and price drops (I consider this as a huge risk now), accelerating a CEX listing could help attract more users and stabilize the token in a such scenario but there are checkpoints which should be done from technical side, I suppose.

54

Thank you to all ecosystem participants and token holders for your valuable feedback and engagement throughout this discussion. Over the past two weeks, we have explored this topic from both sides and have had interesting discourse.

We believe this is an opportune time to bring the proposal on-chain for voting. A version of the proposal was already suggested and reviewed on testnet several days ago. Now, it is live here for voting: w3coins

We encourage all token holders to cast their vote on this proposal. As mentioned in the discussion, any token holder with staked tokens is eligible to vote independently.

Let the voting begin - Your participation is crucial in shaping the future of our ecosystem!

55

So bullish this new that stakeholder extend vesting…

56

While we recognize Lava’s growth trajectory and potential, we strongly disagree with the proposal to extend the vesting schedule for the following reasons:

1. Community-Driven Decision Unfair to Early Investors
The proposal to allow the community to vote on the lockup extension introduces an inherent conflict of interest. Validators and community members without significant financial exposure to $LAVA may vote “yes” for the extension, as it aligns with their incentives, while early investors—who have skin in the game—are left at a disadvantage.

Allowing the broader community to decide what happens with investors’ funds feels fundamentally unfair. Early supporters took on significant risk to back Lava’s vision and should not have their interests subordinated to those without equivalent commitments. This dynamic undermines trust and sets a dangerous precedent for future governance decisions.

2. Lack of Accountability for Sniped Tokens

The issue of sniped tokens during the token launch remains unresolved. Bots acquired significant amounts of $LAVA at launch, likely leading to centralized sell pressure and undermining the principle of fair distribution.

If the lockup is extended, those with sniped tokens will retain an unfair advantage, potentially dumping them during the bull market, while locked-up investors are left with no recourse.

3. Price Point Discrepancies and Market Fairness

The initial liquidity pool setup and price point selection raise serious questions about fairness. Investors who participated in the private rounds now face a market price with significant devaluation. Meanwhile, others who entered via DEX at launch acquired tokens at a fraction of these prices, bypassing vesting altogether.

This disparity creates a fundamental trust issue.

4. Bull Market Timing

Lava’s utility and demand are intrinsically linked to user activity, which naturally peaks during a bull market. Extending the lockup through January 2026 risks missing this critical period of increased adoption and interest.

Investors should have the opportunity to participate in the market when conditions are most favorable—not be sidelined during a potential bull cycle. This timing appears to benefit only those seeking to artificially suppress sell pressure rather than creating genuine value for token holders.

5. Thin Liquidity and Long-Term Market Health

Liquidity for $LAVA tokens is currently very thin, which poses a significant challenge to the project’s growth and adoption. Locking tokens for another year will not resolve this issue but merely postpone it, leaving the market in an unhealthy state. Without adequate liquidity, token holders face significant risks, including price volatility and difficulties executing trades.

The proposal does not address who will inject liquidity into the market during this extended lockup period or how such liquidity will be sustained. A healthier solution would involve incentivizing liquidity providers and ensuring a stable trading environment rather than extending the lockup and exacerbating existing challenges.

3 Likes
57

i support the idea of extending the vesting schedule

58

I think i like the idea to extend the vesting schedule. encourages team that theyre trusted and that’s good for the community I support it

59

I agree that decisions involving investors should be made solely by the investors. As a validator, not an investor, I will vote to abstain on this decision

1 Like
60

Hi everyone, this is Kam from Chorus One.

As both an investor and active validator in the Lava ecosystem, we want to share our thoughts on the proposed 12-month token unlock extension. While we deeply appreciate the careful consideration behind this proposal and share the goal of ensuring Lava’s long-term success, we will respectfully vote “Abstain” with our Chorus One validator on the current proposal for several key reasons.

Market Timing Considerations

The current market environment presents an unprecedented opportunity for crypto projects, with major governments and corporations embracing blockchain technology at an accelerating pace. Rather than delay token distribution, we should capitalize on these favorable conditions. Consider:

  • We’re witnessing unprecedented institutional adoption
  • Market liquidity is robust
  • Overall crypto sentiment is strongly positive
  • New investors are entering the space at a rapid pace

The Case for Proceeding with Original Schedule

  1. Network Effect Optimization The primary purpose of token distribution is to boost network effects and community engagement. Delaying this process could potentially hamper Lava’s growth at a crucial market moment. The focus should be on maximizing community building and network adoption rather than attempting to control token price dynamics.

  2. Clear Path for New Investors Having investor unlocks occur in the current strong market environment creates a clearer path for new investors. It’s preferable to address potential selling pressure now rather than create uncertainty for future community members who may enter at higher valuations.

  3. Learning from Recent Examples Projects like Hyperliquid and Celestia have demonstrated that addressing token distribution head-on can be more effective than creating a supply overhang. Their experiences suggest that “ripping off the band-aid” can lead to healthier long-term market dynamics.

Alternative Approaches

Instead of a 12-month extension, we propose considering these alternatives and generally agree with several of @thatfinchguy’s arguments:

  1. Shorter Extension Period If some extension is deemed necessary, a 3-6 month adjustment might better balance all stakeholders’ interests while maintaining momentum.

  2. Enhanced Investor Relations Implement a robust investor relations strategy to align token holders’ interests and manage potential selling pressure through communication rather than restrictions.

Our Commitment to Lava

As a validator, investor and long-term supporter, we want to emphasize that our commitment to Lava remains unwavering. In addition to being the largest validator on Lava Network, we are also a Lava investor. We have a long-term commitment to the network and have no plans on selling any tokens regardless of the outcome of this proposal. This natural alignment of interests demonstrates how the ecosystem can create organic holding incentives without artificial restrictions.

Conclusion

While we fully support the team’s prudent approach to ecosystem development, we believe proceeding with the original (or slight modifications) unlock schedule better serves Lava’s long-term interests. It’s worth noting that major exchanges primarily focus on traction and volume metrics rather than lockup schedules when making listing decisions, however, we are not doing the BD work required for it, so we might not have the full picture here.

The strongest path forward involves:

  1. Maintaining (or extending by several months) the original unlock schedule
  2. Implementing robust investor relations programs
  3. Focusing on organic growth and adoption
  4. Capitalizing on the current favorable market conditions

For the reasons outlined and with the idea of not harming the team’s progress in any way, we shall vote abstain with our validator.

1 Like
61

vesting for backers bad idea but for only users and traders good idea

62

100% support the idea of extending the lock up that have a tight bond with token security.