I went looking for TermMax's vesting threshold and couldn't find it.
Not in the airdrop guide. Not in the checker page FAQ. Not in the whitepaper.
This matters more than it sounds. The threshold is the line that decides which version of the airdrop you get. Below it, your whole allocation is directly claimable, no lockup, nothing to think about. Above it, you're choosing between forfeiting 70% and vesting 85%.
Same protocol, same campaign, two completely different experiences — separated by a number nobody published.
There's a reasonable case for that. Publishing the line would let people work backwards from it, and the snapshot has already happened, so knowing it now changes nothing anyway. Fine.
But pair it with the second rule on the same page and it gets heavier.
Allocations are calculated from verified activity records as of the snapshot, and they cannot be adjusted. No individual change requests. The FAQ states this twice in slightly different wording, which usually means they're expecting a lot of people to ask.
"Verified activity" is quietly doing a lot of work in that sentence. It implies some activity counted and some didn't. That methodology isn't published either, and honestly it can't be — publishing sybil rules defeats them.
So both gaps are defensible on their own. Together they put users in an odd position: making a final, irreversible choice, based on a number they can see, sitting on the far side of a line they can't.
The page even pre-empts a smaller version of this, noting that small differences in displayed amounts across the page are just rounding.
When a decision can't be appealed, how much of the working should be shown?
#termmax @TermMax $AAPL.US
Not in the airdrop guide. Not in the checker page FAQ. Not in the whitepaper.
This matters more than it sounds. The threshold is the line that decides which version of the airdrop you get. Below it, your whole allocation is directly claimable, no lockup, nothing to think about. Above it, you're choosing between forfeiting 70% and vesting 85%.
Same protocol, same campaign, two completely different experiences — separated by a number nobody published.
There's a reasonable case for that. Publishing the line would let people work backwards from it, and the snapshot has already happened, so knowing it now changes nothing anyway. Fine.
But pair it with the second rule on the same page and it gets heavier.
Allocations are calculated from verified activity records as of the snapshot, and they cannot be adjusted. No individual change requests. The FAQ states this twice in slightly different wording, which usually means they're expecting a lot of people to ask.
"Verified activity" is quietly doing a lot of work in that sentence. It implies some activity counted and some didn't. That methodology isn't published either, and honestly it can't be — publishing sybil rules defeats them.
So both gaps are defensible on their own. Together they put users in an odd position: making a final, irreversible choice, based on a number they can see, sitting on the far side of a line they can't.
The page even pre-empts a smaller version of this, noting that small differences in displayed amounts across the page are just rounding.
When a decision can't be appealed, how much of the working should be shown?
#termmax @TermMax $AAPL.US