Withdrawal Limits Strategy

Withdrawal Limits Strategy

The Graviton team is constantly working on products and integrations. Our approach focuses on soft releases to ensure quality and security while preventing any single point of failure. After finishing the core part of the Early Bird functionality, many community members have successfully tested staking/withdrawals/LP-Farming and governance voting, while EB withdrawals were limited to 10 GTON/day. Since the end of the EB phase though, almost 35% of the GTON EB allocation has been unlocked and would be available for claims.

While the team’s initial plan was to open up unlimited claims right after the alpha testing phase, new developments, like Pathway, and market dynamics, lead to the reconsideration of these plans and the setup of this very proposal.

We as the DAO will now decide which strategy we should choose to increase the GTON withdrawal limits in the near future.

The proposal contains two strategies, both have its own pros/cons depending on how EB participants will act as a community. This is basically Game Theory in practice, but the team will implement any approach which will be chosen by the token holders.

Option-I. Bi-Weekly Doubling:

We can slowly increase the daily limit each two weeks as follows:

10 (0) → 20 (2) → 40 (4) → 80 (6) → 160 (8) → 320 (10) → 640 (12) → 1280 (14) → 2560 (16) → 5120 (18) → … → Unlimited

Considering the average EB contribution ($14k), the majority of EBs would be able to claim their entire unlocked allocation within 9 weeks, while the biggest single EB contributor would have full access in less than 18 weeks:

At the same time, this approach will prevent any potential market sell shocks and will give us the opportunity to continue growing organically. In our opinion this is also the best strategy to support ‘Pathway’.

Option-II. Unlimited Withdrawals

We’ll open up unlimited withdrawals, as initially planned, but can’t prevent any ‘musical chair’ situation: Some EBs could choose the fast cashout strategy (token has 4x the EB price), which could lead to a big short-term GTON price correction. This correction could in turn have a negative impact on the momentum we have gained in the recent weeks, resulting in a significant slow down of the project’s growth.

In the short term this strategy seems to be more critical and is basically a bet on the GTON community self-organization. Nonetheless, we are prepared for either scenario: after a potential market shock, the project will, with the help of ‘Pathway’, start another cycle of growth with a new audience of DAO token holders. This approach is also good, if we’ll implement EB account migration via NFT tokens and OTC deals with those NFTs (a separate proposal on this matter will be published soon).

Now it is up to the community to discuss both options and vote for one of them. The team’s tokens are locked for 1 year without claims, so from that perspective both options are good to go.

Initially I stated, that my personal opinion is Option-I as the better solution, but after in depth conversations with the team, advisors, ambassadors and EBs, I reconsidered my opinion and am now advocating for Option-II as stated in my post here: Withdrawal Limits Strategy - #22 by alexp


To keep the momentum going we should go with Option 1 to keep everyone happy.

1 Like

Option 1 is a no brainer i think. For those who want to exit with larger amounts, Otc Nft deal should be provided.

Well, i must say that i don’t find this topic as easy as it seems. First of all, this is a tremendous change in comparison to what EBs bought into. EBs agreed on a release curve, but not that the tokens, although released by the curve, are vested afterwards. Therefore, option 2 would be the option that is closest to what was agreed on for EBs.

Option 1 on the other hand, seems more realistic for a stable growth of GTON, which we should all be interested in. Yet, option 1 disadvantages large EB investors, simply because it would take more time for them to claim their tokens, while smaller EB investors could claim their complete tokens faster. Yes, i do understand that this results in less potential selling pressure, yet i see a middle ground between option 1 and option 2: why not make the amount of tokens available for claiming a percentage of the released tokens of the user? So instead of having the 10 → 20 → 40 ->… scheme, it could be 0.1% → 0.2% → 0.4% → …

I guess that would be a way fairer scheme for everybody.


definitely, Opt 1 is the best way to keep our growth momentum, I vote for Opt 1


I support Option 1 for reasons explained before.

Nonetheless, the daily withdrawal restriction is a big obstacle towards obtaining the ‘total claimable GTON’ as given in the table, as this would only be possible if users commit to withdrawing GTON on every single day.

As such, I would recommend changing the daily limit to a weekly one, in order to not punish people planning to withdraw with unnecessary work.


I would also agree on weekly limits, in case option 1 will be voted.

Just to be clear: the sums should remain the same, so it should be weekly limits like:

140 (2) → 280 (4) → 560 (6) → …

I agree with Hawky that a percentage-wise unlock makes more sense, in order to equal the field independent of your initial investments.

opt 1 is fine to all.

Agree with @hawky and @Jim regarding weekly withdrawal instead of the daily task. Also we should consider the percentage-wise unlock, as the other model would basically punish big EB contributors.

1 Like

Given the difference between the smallest investor and biggest investor (1 to 300, as in $1000 to $300 000) , it will probably be best to create minimum/maximum limits on the unlock formula if adopting a percentage-wise unlock. Requiring some extra investigation.

And each unlock cycle (every two weeks), the minimum and maximum unlock amount can follow the same trend (e.g. doubling).

To recap on the relative/absolute GTON claim rate:

  • Absolute amounts negatively impact bigger investors in the way that they will be locked out of their share for longer
  • Relative amounts create a huge difference between the smallest and biggest investors, as the moment a $1000 investor can withdraw 10GTON ($150), the biggest investor can withdraw 3000GTON ($45 000)

Maybe a compromise is a solution in the middle. Where we decide to scale the claiming using a weight that is normalized between two numbers.

For example, we can reweigh the claiming amount by a factor no less than 1 and no greater than 4. To refer back to the initial proposal, this can be intuitively interpreted as the claiming rates being spread over 4 weeks. In other words, the smallest investor can claim as much as the biggest investor could claim one month previous. Based on your initial investment, the factor that applies to you is linearly scaled between your investment, the smallest investor, and the biggest investor.

For example, using the factor 4:
factor calculation: 3*(INV - 1000)/300000 + 1

  • EB of $10 000 are multiplied by 1.09
  • EB of $50 000 are multiplied by 1.49

edit: changed wording after comment of BNS

Good approach. Just to clarify some wordings for those reading this: the unlock stays untouched and follows the initially planned unlock schedule. This is referring to the claiming of unlocked tokens.

1 Like

Option 1 for me is an easy choice. I do agree with percentage of weeks as opposed to an actual fixed number for fairness to all parties.

**Would also like to add one addition to the proposal to discuss since the team is worried about the market shock with the imminent EB release. Add a one time additional staking incentive for EB’s who choose to continue staking their allocations on Graviton.One throughout the 16-20 week period. I don’t say this from a place of greed, more so from an area that I bet there are more EB’s that probably feel the way Hawky articulated in the beginning of his first statement. Those EB’s may choose Option II simply because they want to be done with the song and dance. Throw an additional “special” staking incentive and their worries and frustrations may simmer away. Like sending a girl some flowers after an argument with a little note about how much she means to you.

Now with that said, I’m not sure where that incentive should come from in terms of the tokenomics.


1 Like

I think it would be fair to leave three options:

  1. Doubling every two weeks (1st option)
  2. Unlimited withdrawals (2nd option)
  3. Percentage withdrawals.
    There should be a weekly limit for options 1 and 3 because it’s convenient. If we care about how whales manage their investments, we should give them choices according to their votes. It’s all fair.
    I wouldn’t worry about a market shock because many, shall we say, undervalued or didn’t understand the project (like me) and are willing to go in at a tasty price.

***the EB incentive option is also interesting, but with an extra lock-period, for example

1 Like

percentage approach takes more time for dev and test unfortunately, since atm smart contracts has limits by absolute amnt of GTON

same with weekly limits

the current system designed with daily limits, so this takes time for dev and test as well

let also consider this approach as an addition to the current proposal:

Well, at the end of the day, at some point tokens need to be released. At this point some will dump, and others will continue to hodl. My guess is that the longer we wait with token releases, the bigger the dump will get, basically for three reasons:

  1. The later we release tokens, the more tokens are released.
  2. The later we release, the more users will want to dump.
  3. If the partnership machine works as currently, the price will be higher the later we release.

That having said, i assume a sooner release is better for harming the price less. Especially in a situation where we have momentum, i could imagine that the outcome is not so bad. In addition, if we could offer EBs that want to sell an OTC possibility, that should help a lot.


I really like the OTC swap option for larger EB positions. It allows larger holders to sell their positions without dumping on market. Plus it will transfer the vested EB position to new holders. Hence they will have funds locked in same proportion as EB (rather than them having bought from market and having large amounts of gton available to dump whenever they choose)
Its win for both larger sellers and buyers as they avoid liquidity and slippage issues and its a win for recent holders who have bought already as this will reduce the market volatility.

(im assuming the NFT swap deal allows unreleased gton positions to be transferred too. Saw aleksei post something like this somewhere)

1 Like