WIP-5: Token minting improvement


The tokenomics aspect of WINR is, undeniably, its most significant area for improvement, even though the project holds considerable promise and uniqueness. The proposal is aims to offer solutions that can enhance the present situation and strengthen WINR’s position as an innovator, while also making its token a more attractive investment option.

Why now?

There have been valid concerns regarding the minting of WINR and vWINR that have generated a significant amount of FUD circulating on Twitter and the Discord channel, attracting considerable negative publicity to the project. This adverse PR can be transformed into a positive catalyst by implementing prompt and decisive actions.


The tokenomics documentation for WINR indicates that around 40% of the supply is in the hands of the team and early investors, subject to a notably aggressive linear monthly vesting schedule. For brevity, I’ll overlook specific details like the six-month cliff for team tokens and the vWINR minting process, which allows conversion to WINR after some months. Despite these complexities, the overall minting schedule still results in significant monthly selling pressure. This is particularly impactful during a crucial phase for young projects: the early bull market.

The best counter examples would be projects like Celestia, which have managed to see their token price rise even while airdropping to the community. They have roughly timed their vesting schedule to start in the middle part of the bull market, thereby minimizing early sell pressure. This approach is partly why we’re witnessing numerous airdrops currently, as teams are aligning their vesting schedules to more favorable market conditions.

Proposed Solutions

We must make distinction between two groups:

  • Team (insiders, partners, advisers, marketing)
  • Early investors / core contributors: they purchased 17.5% of the supply for 1 million USD (asked on Discord), which would mean a price of almost 0.006 USD per token

I will propose a separate solution for each group.

Solution 1 - insiders

Upon discussing in the Discord channel, it became clear that the team has a leeway of at least 2-3 years and they are staking their vested tokens.

Considering the leeway and that the team is not interested in selling to fund the project, adding a 12 - 18 months cliff from now or changing the linear minting rate to an exponential one would be a great improvement - this should be discussed more with the community.

Additionally, early in the lifetime of the project, it would be advised that the team does not stake their significant portion of the vested supply to avoid diluting the rewards and bring more users. Therefore, either locking them up or adopting an exponential rate becomes even more logical.

Solution 2 - early investors

To avoid a scenario where the tyranny of the majority dictates outcomes, this part of the proposal suggests that only early investors should have the right to vote on this solution. This approach is designed to prevent any unfairness and ensure that the voices of those who have been with the project from the beginning are adequately represented and influential in decision-making.

In terms of vesting, this approach would be similar to the previously discussed solutions, like introducing a cliff period or changing the minting rate, with the significant distinction being the voting process, where early investors have exclusive rights to decide.

Expected Effects

Addressing the current negative attention on social media with a quick, community-driven solution could significantly improve the perception of the project. Demonstrating that it operates on decentralized principles and is responsive to feedback emphasizes the strength and involvement of its community.

Implementing even just one of the proposed solutions could effectively transform the negative public relations into a positive narrative. It would showcase the project’s commitment to adaptability and its willingness to engage with and act upon community input.

This approach not only addresses immediate concerns but also builds trust and credibility, vital for long-term success and growth.


To conclude, the valid concerns that have led to the negative attention the project is currently receiving can be swiftly transformed into a positive catalyst. Prompt and strategic action is key to achieving this turnaround.

With more adoption, the token will gradually become deflationary but it is important to first make it appealing for mass adoption to achieve this long term goal.

Such an approach will not only address and improve the arguably weakest aspect of the protocol but will also pave the way for its success.


This is a great suggestion. We support this suggestion and propose getting WIP-4 and WIP-5 in the same vote in the following week.

Our proposal is, along with WIP-4:

  • Cut bribes to only vWINR, and vWINR put into conversion, including those who leave the vWINR in the vesting module—effectively forcing people to convert to vWINR from WINR to receive daily revenues. This will effectively increase the vWINR APR by a large margin, especially considering the Degens V2 launch following Monday, forcing half of every position closed in loss to go to bribes.
  • Deploy a new vesting contract that resets the current vesting schedule and adds nine months to the WINR Labs and Core Contributors (who are early seed investors), which will increase the total remaining month for Core Contributors to 24 months and WINR Labs to 39 months.

If the community agrees with the logic, we will compile the above to a single vote and publish it on Snapshot next week.


This is absolute fire and a great proof of commitment from team and investors. I would support this proposal.

1 Like

I don’t agree with this proposal. I was not an early investor in the project. But I hope to release winr for early investors faster. The reasons are as follows:
1: The cost for early investors is very low. The lower the price now, the easier it is for the market to accept these low-cost chips. If released too late, the price will be very high, which will increase the pressure on the market.
2: The chips of early investors can increase the current winr circulation ratio and further reduce the future inflation rate.
3.: Releasing the winr of early investors in advance can clean out unsteady early investors. This will help the way for winr to rise later.
At the same time, I don’t agree with the team’s cancellation of j’s participation in vwinr staking. The reasons are as follows:

  1. It is natural for the team to obtain agreement income. They are able to increase their income as protocol revenue increases, similar to equity incentives in traditional stock markets. Align the interests of the team with the interests of investors. Push the team to be more committed to development.
  2. Both project development and project marketing require money. The team’s stake income can better assist project development and marketing. Hire more developers.

Excellent compromise. I had not initially believed WIP-5 was a plausible ask, but in context of the timing of WIP-4, this is a great optics move and a very powerful gesture for long-term investors (current and future).

I would support both of these in this form.

Phenomenal suggestion and well thought out- I support this proposal.

Reposting here from Discord:
I believe WIP-4 and WIP-5 go hand-in-hand. I would agree that putting these to a single vote makes perfect sense. Call it a win-win for all token holders with a long term vision for this project. Dev team and contributors showing commitment and support for the ongoing growth and positive direction. All while supportive investors look to earn an increased yield while the protocol experiences this growth, must commit to a 180 day holding timeframe to fully benefit.

Recapped: In order to ensure that those taking on the risk will get the rewards for a 15-180 day conversion to vWINR, the dev team will prolong the emissions schedule by 9 months. I am in favor of a combined vote and will support that vote.

1 Like

Good ideas. Newer member here.
Has much thought been given with eliminating the burn mechanism in favor of the vWinr to for those who support the project and participate, thereby, building loyalty through the increased APR

1 Like

I strongly disagree with the current proposal, as it veers in a completely wrong direction from what we initially agreed upon. Firstly, this proposal blatantly breaks the agreement we, as pre-sale investors, had with the WINR team. This breach of trust is a serious concern for me.

Secondly, the approach proposed here is fundamentally flawed. In my view, the most strategic move would be to release ALL vested tokens now, just as numerous other projects have successfully done in these turbulent market conditions. Why, you ask?

Releasing all tokens immediately would lead to the quick exit of weak hands, effectively addressing and concluding any inflation concerns. This approach is like ripping off a bandaid – painful in the short term, yes, but it paves the way for a much brighter future. In the long term, the sky’s the limit.

If we were to make any changes, I’d advocate for a revision of the tokenomics to enable this immediate release of all vested tokens. This way, those who want to sell will do so promptly, and those who believe in the project’s long-term potential will hold onto their tokens for a much longer period.