Exclusion from the airdrop of those who vote 'No' in Investigate airdrop farming proposal

Exclude from the list of recipients of a possible future Airdrop ALL addresses who took part in eight vote is select ‘No option’ on the snapshot (Investigate airdrop farming and exclude large sybil attackers).
those people who took part in this vote ‘No’ they are definitely airdrop hunter who don’t care about DAO. we don’t allow those user who vote ‘No’ because this address is not care about DAO.

. we identified easley airdrop hunter.
. identified real user because real user is definitely choose Yes.

.some real user miss because of wrong vote


We can not label users as hunter just based on the their vote . So I am against to what you are proposing , however I support the idea of further investigating the addresses who voted NO to that proposal . We need some kind of proof to exclude users .


It’s funny. Voting is mostly about everyone voting the way it’s best or the way it really is.

If someone thinks otherwise, they vote as they see fit. You have one address and want to have more for yourself, someone has many addresses because he also wants to have more for himself. Just because someone has multiple addresses does not mean that he is a bot or just trash who is here only for airdrop. Many addresses can mean big engagement in many projects and diversification of portfolio.

Generally all polls have one big problem. Most of them vote without even reading what or vote just to vote and get the benefits of various grants. This is the problem with most voting. It’s not that simple.voting in decentralized applications does not play its role as originally intended and there are many doubts about it

I have many addresses, on many I had DEXT token for more than a year (which means I could have picked up a lot of dex guru nft for free but I didn’t ). I bought a lot of NFTS dex guru before information about airdrop and when team wrote that there will be no airdrop. I spent on NFT alone about 3000 thousand dollars.

So I wanted to support the project. I have donated a lot of money to open sea and I am involved in voting on accounts. Does it mean that I am not valuable and airdrop is for you, because I am much bigger than you, I make daily turnover on the markets which you cannot make in 1 year?

I was the one who took the risk at an early stage when no one guaranteed me anything - who takes the risk wins

This is all one big mockery. The team should manually check each address and make a fair decision because there should be many criteria and each situation is completely different.

I bought tokens at 0.06 - 0.12 eth, the team itself created the possibility of buying them, they themselves wrote that there will be no airdrop. I like risk and I trade and speculate a lot. And now such XYZ person will write what is best for him and most people choose not what is good for the project but for themselves. Therefore, as in a democracy where the majority chooses, it does not make much sense. The majority chooses wrong.

The dex.guru team should think about what is really most suitable and what kind of user will be valuable. and not every first user who has a turnover of 1000 , 500 or 100 dollars in a year.
Such a user. He’ll take the airdrop and go away. Even if he has only one account.

I would use dex.guru for a long time on many accounts, I would leave 10 times more money for development or for using accounts and allerts (like on dextools app - 200 allerst per acc… ) which you still do not have by the way

And btw2. There is such a thing as a power vote. Is if someone has a bigger share (in this case - more nfts) . He gave more. He’s committed more. Doesn’t that mean his vote is worth more? How can you treat every vote the same? A bigger contribution means a bigger vote.


In theory. Because real bots won’t have their addresses listed. I’ll ask the team. If someone is a real hunter and spammer. What is the problem to create regular unlinked accounts and have even 1000 of them. Make 1000 accounts to which I send funds from the stock exchange/ternado/wormholes etc so that there are no links? Therefore the number and volumes of transactions should be the key and not the fact that someone has several addresses! Who is really a real and genuine user here and who is really a smoker? Or maybe the author of the topic has already thought it over and knew how to create an army of his own bots that do not link his accounts and thus collects everything? Does it make sense? In theory it is possible isn’t it ?


it’s definitely unethical, disrespectful towards others choice, against democracy “voting purpose”, a betrayal. simply a pure revenge, I can’t believe it !!
This proves that you are ready to do anything no matter what happens to others in order to amass more tokens in your pocket.


Oh shit here we go again :man_facepalming:

We are talking for a month about DAO, how governance works, and how decisions are made. Yet you bring over and over again that it is me/core team/admins creating rules for airdrop and deciding who is eligible and filtering out hunters. Or even worse you think that someone should do this job selecting and defining who is eligible for what.

Ser, life doesn’t work that way, I told many times that it isn’t the case. It is DAO and your fellow community members are coming up with proposals and voting on them. Not me, not team, not admins.

Can you understand that?


I voteded “No” in this vote. Because:

  1. It is not good paraswap style precendent.

  2. It is very centralized wallet excluding. Team will make a list and put them in a vote to exclude. People will vote like: “There is no my address(es) in this list, then I vote “yes””. I am ready to bet that if team put a list of thousand of random wallets to this vote then DAO will vote to exclude them.

I made my own investigation using Dune service. And found about 800 clearly abusive Guru NFT minters (lot of them still owning them). One guy just minted 200 of Guru NFTs. And it is easy to prove that he is an abuser.
I am gonna to complete my investigation soon and post it for you in a day or two.


Does it hurt?

What don’t you understand from my statement? Your arugemtation totally shows that you understood nothing.

This community decides. And so, following your reasoning. Someone creates 10000 unlinked accounts and buys 51% nft from the markets. Then he will push for votes and win them no matter what they are. i.e. that aidrop is only for him. Just because he has a majority he wins.

I ask again - what don’t you understand about this absurd voting system where no arguments count?

1 Like

I totally agree - there is a difference of obvious farms that have 200 accounts just to collect aidrops versus 15 accounts that regularly use and swap and make big turnover on those accounts

1 Like

Ser, what’s the point of arguing? You don’t like how things works here, you can simply move on to a next opportunity there are plenty of projects in web3 niche. Why waste your time and energy on something you don’t like or don’t understand?

Although I for myself have voted ‘Yes’ in that proposal, I think it’s not fair to remove all of those who voted ‘No’ because many reasons might have resulted in them voting ‘No’ not just being an airdrop hunter. I believe that the ongoing investigation for detecting the farmers is going well, and we should not push too far, which may bring worse outcomes.


Also i think the same with other guys… Its good to remove airdrop hunters but being to restrict on it will not help much… sometimes it brings hate to community… Voting No on that proposal is not like the ones we used to find airdrop hunters … this one was real voting and we should respect all the ideas… P.S i voted yes too…


The people who voted “No” in this survey really didn’t study the survey’s content well enough. If they are a responsible user, they will realize that there is an anomaly in this investigation. They had 3 days to find out before voting, but they didn’t find out and still participated in the vote. The language barrier was only a small part, not the reason they voted wrong. I support this idea and recommend further investigation of the addresses that voted in this investigation.

1 Like