[Proposal] Increase Membership token requirements based on the different tiers

Proposal Purpose:

Currently the membership token requirement is based on a flat 1% increase, this seems to be a bit too low against the current emission schedule.


The increase in token requirements could be connected to the expected emissions in the next epoch, so the voting power per class is not diluted. In addition to connecting the emissions / supply factor an additional benefit of being in any of the higher classes will be that the requirements to enter will be higher over time. In January we are expecting the circulating supply excluding liquidity mining to be approximately 74.8M Grape. 10M Grape will be lent to the Market Maker and 4M additional Grape will be emitted. 4M/74.8M = 5.34%

** Grape Emission Requirements:**

Increasing the requirement will also require 640,000 additional Grape emitted vs previous Epoch to preserve the new membership token requirements.

Proposed new membership tiers for the next Epoch

Current Membership

Class C - Gibbon 1020 $GRAPE
Class B - Great Ape 5100 $GRAPE
Class A - Gorilla 20400 $GRAPE

Model 1

Class C - Gibbon 1050 $Grape ~2.65%
Class B - Great Ape 5300 $Grape ~3.71%
Class A - Gorilla 21500 $Grape ~5.3% increase

Logic of proposing smaller increase in membership in Class C. Class C members are the least sticky members. Knowing that the next class will require more tokens, will also incentivize earlier entry in Class B or Class B. The 2.65% number is 50% of the emission inflation, 3.71% is 70% of 5.31% and 5.31is 100%

Model 2

Class C - Gibbon 1075 Grape 5.3%
Class B - Great Ape 5370 Grape ~5.3% increase
Class A - Gorilla 21500 Grape ~5.3% increase

Logic of proposing an equal amount would support fairness in emissions, but lower incentive in being a class B or A member.

Happy to start a discussing this proposal


I don’t follow the rationale in the first sentence. Can you expand on it?

Is the 4M arbitrarily chosen? I don’t understand where it comes from.

I’m against model 1. I think its effect to incentivize class C to move up to class B earlier is weaker than its effect to disincentivize from joining to begin with, because the classes would be set up in a “rich get richer” way (not just in absolute terms, but in % terms too). Very few people hold Grape for the emissions anyways, since they are quite small.


The Market Making loan is 10M Grape for 12 months at 833,333 $GRAPE per month from emissions. Correct remaining emissions are 4,166,667 not exactly 4M Grape per month


Regarding the current emission schedule the inflation expected in the next epochs from Community Emissions are

  • 5.3% January 74.8M circulating tokens
  • 4.9% February 80.3M circulating tokens
  • 4.66% March 85.8M circulating tokens
  • 4.38% April 91.3M circulating tokens
  • 4.13% May 96.8M circulating tokens
  • 3.91% June 102.3M circulating tokens
  • 3.7% July 107.8M circulating tokens
  • 3.5% August 113.3M circulating tokens
  • 3% September 130M circulating tokens Team + Investors first unlock
  • 2.7% October 143M circulating tokens
  • 2.5% November 156.1 circulating tokens
  • 2.36% December 169.2 circulating tokens
  • 2.7% January 183.3M circulating tokens (end of Market making agreement tokens are returned or bought emissions back to 5M)
  • 2.5% February 197.4M circulating tokens
  • 2.36% March 211.5M circulating tokens

I understand your point and I also see Billy’s, the main point being, give our existing members the best possible advantage for being part of Grape early.

The membership emission is a passive bonus, and I’d prefer to incentivise active participation. That being said, I’d support this because it does help grow membership which grows holding and eventually promotes participation


Great topic! It immediately gave me pause because it’s something I asked myself when I joined Grape. First, I appreciated that I could buy enough $GRAPE, get a tier, and be done with it. Then, on second thought, I wondered why there are no requirements for keeping the membership level. It obviously is no easy thing to decide on, but I strongly think that it is something we should discuss, even if we keep things as they are. Then we could at least mention why we believe that this is necessary and a good thing (and add it to our documentation :yum: )

I really like how you approached this. Maybe we should also brainstorm a bit more based on your idea and discuss the pros and cons of e.g. making it that there is an additional tier below Class C that you can’t actively join but that you get if you don’t have enough Grape for Class C anymore - like Baboons or Capuchin.
Or if we only increase membership requirements for Class B and A, so that you can never lose Class C.
Also, if we really consider changing this, we should definitely talk about additional ways for members to earn those $GRAPE.

It certainly is nothing that needs to be decided on immediately, but I added it to tomorrow’s agenda, in case we want to talk about it.

Btw, we should express the emissions in APY because the numbers will be larger. Monkey see big numba, monkey ape. No one thinks in terms of monthly % earned anyways. Just make it APY with monthly compounding. With 5% emissions, that would be about 60% APY. Not bad.


I like model 1: Getting people into GRAPE would be beneficial in the long run and increase exposure for the project as well as participation in our many events. A high number of members is a selling point, high participation/engagement an even great point. Even if they are not incentivized to move up, they are still part of GRAPE

Edit: shit, I just continued reading the comments and found these points were already made.

1 Like

The is something that could possibly utilize the participation bot Dean has running…then grant to specific members that are actively participating. FOod for thought

Edit: even though at first glance, I am against creating another ‘role’ as I fear it will become too difficult for new members to understand. I am a big fan of ELI5 structuring overall

1 Like
  • If anything we need less roles & less complexity in tiers
  • I understand the reasoning behind model 1 but doubt many users will
  • The absolute difference in GRAPE requirements per role between both models is almost indistinguishable

In the short-run, status quo - Yes

In the long-run, Class C membership will still be accessible, and Class A will be even more exclusive.

I think this change has more benefits, while not overshadowing some of the other key initiatives for rewards output.

When given the opportunity, I hold or stake for rewards. This accomplishes both. I don’t think it should be underestimated how useful a model like this can be, especially coupled with future assumptions :wink:


I aggree with that. For new members the server is already overwhelming and I think it will just cause more confusion.


I agree too, even I can’t keep up— most of these roles should be merged
Like YT crew-- why can’t it be under CC?


This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.