[Proposal] Allow withdrawals from Pylon Pools from projects that don’t provide meaningful updates or progress


I have seen some discontent floating around chatrooms and Twitter about this topic and I thought i’d raise it, seeing as i agree.

The problem

Currently the TWD pools have 141.441.985 UST deposited in to the Which equates to a monthly yield of 2.292.538,84 UST for the Terraworld team. (Minus Pylons fees). Given that the token distribution is only at 39%, this absurd amount of funding would continue for quite a while.

Given the lack of updates and progress (and frankly lack of direction) from this team I think it is necessary to take a moment to reflect on this deal. The TWD team has no obligations, but meanwhile pockets over 2M a month from this collaboration. I think it is completely disproportionate and take away largely the monetary incentive to work towards a great product.

Then there is the issue of the strain on the Anchor yield reserve. Pylon being build on top of Anchors yield gives us a responsibility to keep checks and balances on the teams utilizing this. Underperforming projects with huge pool deposits are a huge draw on the yield reserve and if we a Pylon community perform at least some regular checks we could help alleviate this stress.

If you feel like other projects are underperforming and their Pool deposits/income are disproportionate to the value the provide to investors please share your thoughts in the comments.


We as Pylon community should review the projects on a semi-monthly basis to see if they provide meaningful progress and to review wether the funding is appropriate. If this is not the case we should have the option to withdraw UST either partially or in full.

From my point of view this case is pretty clear in the TWD case, I propose to enable withdrawals on all 3 TWD pools as soon as possible.

Please share your opinions about the TWD pools, other projects and the semi-monthly review in the comments.


Fully support where this proposal is going.

Another option would be to allow users to redelegate UST from an existing project to another.

The UST would still remain on Pylon Protocol but will be shifted to a more deserving project.


Well said - I’m in complete agreement - would love to shift UST to other projects


Agreed - am in favour of the redelegating option.


Are you giving up all twd mined amount when withdrawing ust?


Fully agreed,

Are you giving up all twd mined amount when withdrawing ust?
→ you can either keep goig, or leave the project.

But, I don’t know where TWD is going currently.
and where they use the whole tons of funds right now.


Considering we’ve seen more from Lunaverse pre-launch and TWD was to be “the first metaverse on Terra” it’s definitely been quite the disappointment, I totally agree, keep the UST locked, we all agreed to do this, but just reallocate it to a project that is incentivised / delivering results in proportion to the funding. Investors in Pylon shouldn’t have to go searching for assurances, the project teams know exactly what they’re doing so why not share? Even if it is drinking with strippers on a yacht, at least investors get some value knowing exactly where every cent is going.


Won’t talk about TWD specifically but generally on the idea of being able to withdraw/redelegate deposits

Mostly neutral but a few things that might be worth considering:

  • “meaningful progress” should be very clearly defined and agreed upon by both the projects and investors, possibly on a per-project basis, as unclear expectations and misalignment in cases like this could get really messy
  • while it would give the user/investor more options, having the option to simply withdraw/redelegate your investment could create bad precedence, as it means the depositors are able to invest with less confidence, conviction, and DD, which is not a habit that IMO we should not be promoting. This is especially true since, in contrast to traditional investing where underperforming projects could very much go to 0, with Pylon Pools you’d still get your principal back at the end of the deposit period
  • From the project perspective, having a fluctuating cash flow is one more thing that they would need to take into account, in addition to keeping the community satisfied. In some cases, projects could end up focusing on shipping small short-term items to please the community rather than working on something more long-term that might take longer before any meaningful update/progress comes out of it

I do like this proposal, but instead of withdrawal make it redelegation only to mandate the vesting period.

1 Like

I am in overall agreement with the fact that someting should be done, and that options should exist to “penalize” teams that repeatedly under perform or don’t stick to their road map.
This should not become some scapegoat for “their token is not performing well in the market”

This has been discussed before but never made it to voting:

I believe that some of the things previously discussed were

  • rather than withdraw, more yield is directed into pylon rather than to the teams. This would boost the Treasury, and thus benefit MINE stakers directly
  • The increase in redirect would be gradual and would have to happen in steps after successive votes of no confidence

As you’re saying @komi0x its vital that measurable goals exist prior to creating a pool for a project, otherwise its impossible.


We’ve been saying this for months now, and there is been no feedback from the team. there are some amazing projects tht will come along i want to have the possibility of moving my fund somewhere else if a project is not giving update, i agreed with the fact TWD have a huge amount allocated to them but the luck of update makes me worried, and something needs to be done here.

I also consider it’s a good option to be able to exit out from projects that don’t deliver. Ofc without the rewards as you did not go through all the lock time. This would be the fastest. But in the same time might force big moves of capital if FOMO is installed.
Redirecting the yield to treasury its a good idea and i like the idea of successive voting. People must be active if they want their money to produce money.


Agree completely… this will keep projects in check and promote progress…

1 Like

Totally and fully agree with the proposal. We need to be able to re-delegate to other project in Pylon.
Support this with my hands and legs.

Overall, this seems like a pretty decent idea.

I am wondering if we really want such scrutiny/projectAudit to take place semi-annually AND involve the whole community.

I would not be opposed to:

  1. Setting up clear guidelines for any newly accepted project about “what conditions does it need to meet to stay in the pools”.
  2. Electing a committee (similar to Terra Ecosystem Committee) which would handle the regular project/roadmap reviews in a transparent way, with the authority to make decisions or defer to a community vote if they feel it’s needed.
  3. Having all current projects inspected with the criteria developed in 1. as part of the first regular review.

This would create an environment where trusted individuals could govern on behalf of the community while keeping things under community’s control with transparency.

1 Like

I think we need to consider TWD as a very special case.
The big anomaly here is that TWD has allocated a very big amount of the supply to pylon.
At the end 2mn per months is the income at peak, once the 6 months pool will be expired the flow will be half, slowly decreasing. More: the pools were not filled since day 1. So the full project was priced with a quite low full diluted valuation (who has joined the pools early was buying tokens at a 5 mn FDV).
It is clear that TWD team has now a conflict of interest that mine stakers and gateway pool investors want to address. They have given away lot of twds and received quite some UST: are they delivering? Do they have any interest in working to increase TWD value? I think we need to put pressure on their team to clarify these to points.
Unlocking the gateway is an extrema ratio which I would avoidas much as possible. Idk how demanding is from a dev point of view (considering also sw vulnerabilities and audits) to divert resources to create an ad hoc functionality when GFI and DP are the future and address a lot of problems already. Ideally, in case, provided that TWD has to be given the possibility of defending properly, we could allow a reshuffling with a penalty: payment of the fully remaining yields to pylon (pylon component: it is around 4% per year) to buy mine and burn them and putting the UST in the GFI. GFI will not allow withdrawal but selling of a DP token at market price.
Such a solution would protect mine stakers and pylon protocol, put lot of pressure on twd and they deserve it, avoid gateway pool investors to game the system (till now they would have mainly in each pool exceeded anchor earn return just dumping) by transferring risk and reassure projects which are behaving correctly that pylon will never take irrational and emotional decisions as they are very important customers.

1 Like

I agree this is a good idea to have. What happens if some project get’s on Pylon and try’s to do a rug pull and keep all the deposit yield’s for 6-12-18 months? This would be a feature that would prevent that. Also if a project is being too slow.

I think people should be able to redirect their deposit to other pylon pools.

I understand your sentiment but this is a very unlikely situation.

Pylon controls the contracts and systems around claiming money, so if a team is partaking and ends up rug pulling etc while pools are still active, Pylon can step in and stop it.

@blackbird well said.
I’m also against allowing withdrawals, internal redirecting of funds or between pools is the way to go IMO.


Great proposal.

Although I wouldn’t allow withdrawals at all. This would cause people removing their UST when market is unsdetalbe underMINEinig :wink: ongoing projects.

But redirection of the funds … I fully agree. But we need to keep our mined tokens. I got like 2kUST in TWD, and have not idea what going on with this project.


1 Like

I support the proposal to allow early withdrawals for underperforming projects.

1 Like