Discussion / Comparison of the T Token Proposals for the KEaNU Network

This post is to bring in one place the discussions comparing the pros/cons of each of the available T Token Proposals for the KEaNU Network.

There are three proposals so far:
T1: @state

T2: @benlongstaff

T3: @Naxsun @evandro_saturnino and @Eastban, with advise and consultation of @corollari

Here is a comparison of the key numerical aspects of token emission and distributions.

Note: Table edited based on feedback received


It’s really interesting to me that the T2 proposal from @benlongstaff includes explicit additional rewards for LPs and stakers over what they would get in the drop.

@Naxsun @statelayer @Eastban thoughts on that? Maybe @Agoristen from a staker perspective?

1 Like

In T3 we did include 5% for existing stakers. In general I think it’s good to rewards early supporters who helped bring the networks where they are today and took the risk. All holders - non stakers have also benefitted from that. It’s however also the intention to grow and attract more stakers, so I think there’s a balance.

We did not add any specific allocation for LPs as in T2. In general these are also early supporters, but the work & risk is considerable less than staking. I don’t have strong feelings for or against it.

Maybe it would be nice to give existing LPs some sort of whitelisting spot and allow them for a certain amount of time to stake their LP tokens and earn T, to reward these and also support T liquidity.

My opinion is the opinion of ordinary shareholders. Please do not forget about them. I learned about the project not so long ago, but I believed in it and bought tokens on the exchange. Although the marketing work is not so strong, and the team is still solving the technical features of the development.
And can’t I be deserved?


Like memento, I am also a holder who wasn’t aware of the project from the really beginning. That being said, I really believe in the merger and I am really excited that I get a chance to be an early supporter on the new network. I like the second proposal better because it doesnt penalize me too much discovering the project a little late. Gl with the merger guys!


All three proposals have great points. I believe as a community we can choose one proposal, while also considering the highlights of the other 2. It would be unfair to say that T2 and T3 are “better” than T1, given that discourse has been building over time and most likely the latter ones built on top of T1’s feedback.

From T1 something I would highlight is the DAO controlled treasury and making sure token is distributed before launch to be usable as work token, and transferable slightly before launch.
From T3, the Stakedrop detail, specially minting subsidy. Furthermore the discussion on T3’s page leads to think that T3 and T2 are quite similar anyway, where main differences would be in stakedrop percentages (which I’m comfortable with both) and inflation vs multiple sale raises (where I’d rather have DAO controlled inflation).

If I had to go for one proposal as a base, I would chose the great work of @benlongstaff. Your proposal captures previous success factors for KEEP + tBTCv1, as well as pain points. In my opinion, it paves the way for wider community engagement and future proofing KEaNU endeavors such as tBTCv2.

Keen to hear from the rest of the KEaNU community.


Thanks everyone for putting these proposals together. In my opinion, it would seem most fair to drop the larger percentage to holders (ie. 2 and 3). I would think you would want to be inclusive as possible. Also all stalkers are also holders correct?

1 Like

The whitelisting sounds nice,the early access might be worth it depending how you look at it