One of the solutions to what to do with farmers

Good day everyone, first of all I would like to apologize right away for my English, there will probably be mistakes or slightly unclear terms, as I am using a translator to make my message clearer to you.
Начнем с того, что во-первых, вам стоит прочитать эту тему, созданную @rotate.eth

Next, I attach a link to our conversation with him in discord to disclose the original positions.

My subsequent arguments will assume that the DAO does decide to partially block GURU tokens from holders, in order to engage the management and retention of the audience. You can argue a lot, but everyone is well aware that 90% of drop recipients will end up dropping their tokens within the first few weeks. And there is nothing wrong with that, right now the market is in such a state that this is the most profitable strategy, with future acquisition of tokens already at a lower price.

First argument: according to rotate.eth, ONLY BIG FARMERS will be removed, that is, those that fit the criteria of 10+ transaction chains, or those that use multisend. This means that SMALL FARMERS will be left out and get their drop. I see a small injustice here, what is it? Using the example of the very first farmer identified, with a chain of addresses:

This farmer was using the platform even before the team announced the rounds and gatherings, even before even the thought of dropping, it would be unfair to exclude him completely from participating in the DAO as an early participant.

Second argument: We know that these farmers are skilled DeFi users, they know how to use multisend, they probably know how to use DEX structures, they understand what tokenomics and project management look like, since they were able to come up with such a scheme. It is clear that this scheme is manipulative, and if there are many such farmers - it puts the decentralization and DAO itself at risk.
But hear me, these users are smart people who know what they’re doing. If the partial blocking proposal is accepted, these people will be forced to cooperate with us, with the DAO, which makes them valuable personnel, since they have something useful to offer. Yes, rotate.eth has already said that there are smart people at the DAO without them, but there aren’t many smart people! From my country, good professionals go where they are given more benefits, which allows them to move the progress of those countries forward! I want the strongest people to stay with us, even if they are EXTREMELY cooperative.

What is my suggestion? Based on the first argument that people who have less than 10 accounts under control (their number is negotiable, not yet reached a consensus), then SAVE (BUT NOT EXCLUDE !) the number of addresses suitable for drop under the possession of these farmers. Let’s say, for the same example, farmer#1 owns ~70 accounts, we take arbitrary 9 of them and make forced from a BIG FARMER make a LITTLE FARMER, which do not fall under the criteria for sanctions.

What are the advantages of this:

  1. we get rid of the possibility of sibyl attack, as we reduce the number of controlled addresses under drop by 5-20 times.
  2. we leave valuable and smart shots to cooperate with DAO, so they can get their reward.
  3. we exclude even a random possibility of excluding a real user from the drop, he can just get a little bit under reward.

It’s a win-win strategy for both sides. Both for the DAO and the farmers. In addition, this strategy can draw to our side a part of the farmers who are willing to cooperate.

P.S. rotate.eth in discord asked: “consider whether farmers would be so generous to us as to leave some of the reward to regular users.” I answered him back then, I’ll duplicate it here.
My response - An argument based on revenge is not really good for the DAO, though I understand your feelings.
In any case, think about it for a while, even if you are against it now, brains are the most valuable resource when conceiving an idea and organization.

P.S.S. This is not a suggestion, just a thought for public judgment, it will be adjusted for what decisions the DAO will make about farmers’ attrition and about changing the tokenomics model. Thank you for your consideration.


This is a good point. Clearly these farmers are shitting their pants already. If this suggestion is adapted and adopted, they’ll stick around, and positive sentiment in and around the GURUDAO and token will be maintained.
I however suggest that we limit their account to one or a maximum of two. The reason 10 or more connected wallets was indicated is to avoid excluding real users, not necessarily to accommodate ‘small farmers’. Thus if you have been identified as a farmer, a greedy and selfish one for that matter, there’s no reason to keep more than one of your addresses. One person, one address should be the ideal thing afterall.

I am really surprised people will hunt airdrop with as much as 20 wallets, come to think of over 100 wallets. That is blatant greed. It’s not out of place to assume that such people will always seek ways to get things done their way by the DAO so they can profit.


Your proposal sounds reasonable. Anyone using DexGuru from the beginning shouldn’t be removed from the DAO in my opinion even if they sybilled. This person actually supported DexGuru before it gained enough popularity for others to be interested in an airdrop. If the goal is to promote decentralization and not allow one entity to be in control of a large chunk of the token then simply limit the addresses that can receive it to a few.

Hi, thanks for your post.

I agree it is not perfectly fair that large farmers will be removed while small farmers will stay. If there was a perfect way to identify all farmers, maybe the community would accept it. However, if we decrease the minimum from 10, it gets harder to tell the difference between someone who intentionally farmed the airdrop and real users with multiple wallets or friends.
I think that many people are worried that they will be deleted unfairly, so I had to pick a big number for people to feel safe voting for the proposal.

I don’t think it matters that this farmer used Dex Guru before they started farming. They still made a choice to farm and that comes with a risk of being caught and excluded completely.

I understand why you call it “revenge” but I don’t think of it in that way. No one is entitled to get an airdrop. It’s like if a group of friends are playing a game and one person cheats in the game. Then maybe the others don’t want to play with with the cheater anymore.
We are launching a DAO, so we get to decide who we want in it.

As I said in Discord, I agree that the farmers are smart. But voting in a DAO is not only about being smart and understanding crypto. DAO members should be honest and work together, not do secret things in the background to give themselves an advantage over others.

If we want to bring in more “smart people”, we can do that in other ways. Let’s give tokens to early users of Uniswap, or people who deployed a smart contract, or top traders on 0x, or just random people with 250+ transactions.
The farmers aren’t our only choice.


I think we should focus on excluding whales with more than 10 NFTs, because these are the people who can form witch attacks, rather than excluding people with more than 10 mints. If a person mints 10 NFTs and he has two NFTs left, then he can’t form witch attacks on airdrops, so we should understand the purpose of our exclusion

The purpose of this is that airdrop will not cause witch attack. It is meaningless to exclude people with more than 10 mints, because this has happened. If he has no more than 10 NFTs, it means he wants to participate in governance. However, if there are still people with more than 10 NFTs, they will abandon guru during airdrop, which is harmful and fatal to the project, What we need to do is to do something meaningful to the project, not to strike down the air drop hunter with emotion,There are air drop hunters in any project, but we should think from the perspective of the project itself. If an air drop hunter does not have 10 NFTs now, it can prove that he wants to participate in continuous governance. Otherwise, he can sell all NFTs. But now if someone has more than 10 NFTs at the same time, it is certain that when he obtains air drop, the probability will not be held for a long time.

If a person minted 10 NFTs and sold 8 NFTs, then most prob they doesn’t care about contributing to but arrives here solely for the airdrop. They start selling the NFTs after our vigorous filter. If your point is that they do no harm, I would add that they do nothing.

Let’s not have any emotions. At present, do you think it is more harmful to have two NFTs at the same time, or to have 20 NFTs at the same time???

I think they do not sell their NFTs just because they hope they will get more money with the potential airdrop of Guru in the future. Don’t use governance to make an excuse.

And I totally agree with rotate.eth arguments above because those airdrop hunters should all be removed. They are the people who destroy many projects by just dumping the token. They are all here for money, not for governance purposes.

If we want to have smart people with good developing skills with us, we can airdrop to the best contributors of some Layer 1’s Github (like Element Finance have done), not for those cheaters.

1 Like

Having 20 NFTs is harmful in case all of them are airdropped the token. They will all dump it in just some days.

Yeah those cheaters should excluded. There are a lot smart people out there and there are many ways to bring them to Guru. The cheaters are those who will destroy the DAO and the whole project in the long run.

This is a good point. Clearly these farmers are shitting their pants already. If this suggestion is adapted and adopted, they’ll stick around, and positive sentiment in and around the GURUDAO and token will be maintained.

I am really surprised people will hunt airdrop with as much as 20 wallets, come to think of over 100 wallets. That is blatant greed. It’s not out of place to assume that such people will always seek ways to get things done their way by the DAO so they can profit.

Support, if it is determined to be an airdrop hunter, only keep one of all his wallet addresses and let him continue to participate in dao as a participant

If you keep one of his addresses and eliminate the rest, those addresses can belong to real users, it’s quite difficult to determine which addresses belongs to real users, I really don’t know how are we going to deal with the situation.

I support the idea of making one of their addresses eligible for airdrop . They are smart but they used their knowledge to extract most out of DAO by airdrop farming . So I don’t think gifting 9 airdrops to them motivate them to change and become interested in DAO or GURU success .