Increase the minimum amount to participate in a project from 1k Mine to 10k

Mine stakes and Pylon enthusiast what do you think of increasing the amount of luna that a wallet needs to hodl to participate in a project.


I dont think its a good idea to set such minimum at this point in time.

1 Like

I agree the 1k MINE staked minimum is too low. At current rates that’s about $100. 10k MINE sounds reasonable.

1 Like

Just set staking as a requirement but let each project decide the minimum amount

@Shaun, can you please provide a rationale for “why” you think that there should not be a minimum? I’d love to understand your perspective! Also, would you prefer a 1k minimum for all three models:
Pylon Pools, Pylon Swap, and Pylon Scout? Or is this a feeling you have for one model in particular?


I suppose if we go to a robust Treasury Model and community-governance decides to invest Treasury Funds directly into IDOs w/ a lock-up just like an ordinary VC, then this issue of “minimum $mine staked to participate” becomes a moot point, and likely Pylon Swap and Pylon Scout no longer have a purpose on the platform either.

At this point in the discussion, I actually quite like the idea of the robust Treasury for our community to invest in IDOs, as it is the simplest model, it enables the greatest flexibility in accepting protocol founder pricing and terms alongside VCs, and it eliminates entirely the “Bots and Whales” problem without needing to impose KYC and without requiring any explicit Tiers. Thus, it is very SIMPLE!

Tbh, the robust Treasury model is the only true solution to the “Bots and Whales” problem that I have been able to identify so far (and my hair has been turning from brown to white here with the # of hours I’ve spent analyzing this problem)! :joy:

While I agree that MINE staking should gain an advantage for participating, I think putting up limitations like x amount staked to participate in any model would hurt the project.

Instead we should focus on maximizing revenue (fees) in order to increase buying pressure for MINE token.

Maybe you wanna take a look at an alternative approach, how to improve Pylon Pools right here:

The sole reason is that it puts in place rules on project who may not wish to do it that way, then we would lose an IDO due to it, ive always stated 10% revenue is better then 0% so being flexable is best, some may want to set a minimum and we can suggest such, though to inforce it… thats the wrong path for any launch pad on Terra at this point in time, as for the treasurey i 100% agree on looking into this futher, though most give airdrops, so this would increase airdrops or make them last longer.


Ok, good to know, surely wouldn’t want to lose deal flow.

So, revisiting our Pylon institution design objectives, we need to design a solution whereby:

  • long term $Mine stakers are deeply rewarded
  • Bots and whales can’t hurt normies
  • we don’t impose a threshold staking hurdle greater then 1000 $mine to participate in IDOs

Honestly, using Treasury Swaps to buy IDOs & hold them for a lock-up equal to what the VCs do might be the best and only solution I know of that satisfies all of these constraints!

And, it might do so really, really well! I’m actually pretty excited! :blush:

  • " * we don’t impose a threshold staking hurdle greater then 1000 $mine to participate in IDOs" – with today’s MINE price I don’t see why this would be the case. We’re talking 1000 MINE = ±US$80.
    I think it would be more than reasonable to set the minimum at about $400-500 at least, so 5000 MINE for example.

  • long term MINE stakers – it would be great if we could use forward locking mechanisms as an alternative to snapshot/retrospective tracking of time staked, so that we give a fair and equal opportunity to new market entrants.

What problem does increasing the minimum amount to participate in a project from 1k Mine to 10k solve?

Simply raising the minimum amount staked would create barriers of entry for others as the price increases. Thus, reducing the number of wallet holders and hurting the overall project. Not to mention, the headaches of people buying days before the project, only to dump afterwards.

The team should consider creating a Tier structure and use this as a base to reward those based off the amount staked, and length of time held. Yes… it does favor those with bigger wallets.

But, at what point in life doesn’t MONEY buy you more access to something? Think… airline tickets, coach or first class, or how about that new car? Want the standard model or Turbo with heated seats, what about a simple trip to the grocery store… do you buy generic or name brand?

No doubt about it, money upgrades your life style.

Anyway, this solution addresses quite a few of the issues presented in the TG chat room. Once you define the Tier levels and build out a structure to support each level, you could bolt on other things that would improve the durability of the $MINE token.

The project team should REALLY consider adding a vesting schedule or redemption period for anyone buying/staking the token. No IN/OUTs, that’s useless and is a disservice for the community.

Add a tax for anyone withdrawing their $MINE. Either they can INSTANT SWAP with a tax penalty for redeeming, for example, less than 90 days 5% tax, 60, days 10%, 30 days 15%. Less than 30%, hit them with a 30% tax. We want long term investors, not day traders, plus… it ensures you are rewarding the longer term $MINE lovers. Not those, hopping in to get extra stuff and then bailing like they did on a few of your other releases.

Of course, figure out a fair un-bonding period at No Charge. But, make sure you use that Tax Penalty to reward those who are consistently contributing in the well being of the project.

Reward those who are actively helping build and support this project.


I could definitely get behind a tax for early redemptions, and all of these fees would go into the Treasury.

@ed.pylon have guys considered anything like this?

1 Like

I like this idea. But implementing it will be tough. Maybe needs to be modified slightly, someone will need to run the numbers. But along the lines of:

  1. 1000 MINE staked = 1000 UST capped to deposit into pools.

  2. 10000 MINE staked = 10000 UST capped to deposit into pools

And so on so forth. Maybe at 100k MINE there is no hard cap. If you want to participate in the Pylon Pools, you need MINE staked. Simple as. 1000 MINE doesn’t cost much either. It’s a small price to pay to get lossless investment.


  1. Projects would get less funding for sure because of this. But this is the trade off. If projects want to get sweet yields from pylon pools, then this is the way. If not, they need to give allocations to swaps. Right now they are getting too sweet a deal with Pylon Pools that they don’t give any swap allocations. Just my opinion. If their community wants to participate in pylon pools, stake MINE. Simple.

  2. Would MINE need to be staked during the entirety of the pools? Can people just buy 10k MINE, stake it, participate in pools then sell? If yes this doesn’t fix anything. There needs to be some mechanism in place here to negate this.

Maybe the bonus of having your MINE staked means you can withdraw from pools at zero penalty, but if you don’t have MINE staked, there is no withdrawal option. I don’t know. Or maybe you need MINE staked during the entirety of pylon pool length. What do you guys think?

@OlderGrasshopper I def like your idea, I think this post here was to open people mind on an aspect that could change a lot and have people thinking about how good it will be to maybe have tiers, this will include everyone, even the person with 1 Mine token, but also include the person with 1Mil Mine token that’s ready for long term and not short term.

I think you could dovetail these thoughts into a ‘rules based’ business process that is directly tied to the Tier Structure. This would reduce the overall implementation constraints and provide developers an additional tool for their tool bag. Run into an issue… simply “bolt-on” an additional set of rules to the Tiers Levels.

In response to the issues you identified…

  1. Less Funding for Projects: Perhaps, a simple solution would be Tier Levels 0-4 (MINE holders) are exempt from any tax penalty when POOL MONEY is released 6, 12, 18 months from now. They are most likely going to roll their share into the Staking or LP rewards.

If not, they earned it… and they are LONG TERM holders of MINE. Others (Non-MINE holders) should be able to fund a project without holding MINE, but, pay for the lossless investment by paying a TAX. giving up some Pool Rewards that are swapped for MINE on the way out. This of course is added to the treasury. So, I don’t see the issue of projects getting less funding here.

  1. Simple answer, Yes, long term investors in MINE should be a consideration. The rules established here would need to be flushed out. I’d think a discussion around the impact of the tax being collected from the Protocols Pooled Rewards would be a potential constraint. Cost of doing business though, the Pylon team is providing funding for New Projects.

I like the forum much better than TG, but still feel… many of the posts require a Project Leader to guide our thought processes and provide us some additional context.

My understanding is the purpose of the protocol is NOT only for launching new protocols, so the focus of holding MINE needs to be expanded to cover new development efforts. I am not saying it isn’t being thought about… but, adding the tier levels provide flexibility of managing and potentially scaling issues as they grow.

1 Like

Love the tax idea you put forward. The model reminds me of LTO’s troll bridge back in the day. A lot of people were impressed by it and considered it fair. I think the tax model you put forward would be great as it allows everyone to choose their own threshold rather than having that threshold placed upon them.

My initial understanding of what Mine is about is to avoid Whales who are able to buy their way into IDOs. Being that at the time of writing 10K Mine is roughly $750, this is hardly a whale in crypto but a not insignificant amount for some.

That said, I would vote to weigh in on the duration of staking in governance + the amount. Is the time staked in the pool considered for allocations for launches on Pylon?

rather than this drastic change and make the small investor sad
l think it should be implemented stage wise

like up to 5000 MINE can use 200 UST for swap or pool
then 10000 to 20000 can go for 500 UST for swap or pool etc.

So that it will encourage people to stake more MINE

Not a fan of the tax

Also think we need to uphold the virtue of pylon platform - community funding, easily accessible for anyone, not favored towards whales.

Having said that, we do need to create some incentives and purposes for mine stakers

why don’t we just enforce a pool deposit cap on non-stakers?
meanwhile stakers get to deposit as much they can, or the amount matches proportionally to the amount of their staking?