Decide if the ongoing Shimmer Ecosystem funding vote should be stopped and changed!

In the currently-ongoing governance vote on the installment of Shimmer ecosystem funding programs funded by the creation of additional Shimmer tokens, the question displayed to voters in Firefly is:

“Should we incentivize builders and activity on the Shimmer network by increasing the token supply to give the Shimmer Community Treasury DAO and the Tangle Ecosystem Association (TEA) each 10% of the new total supply?”

It has been brought to our attention by several community members that this text could be misinterpreted, as it may differ from certain sections of the original proposal and the follow-up proposal submitted in the governance forum.

These original proposals mention a supply increase of 20% for the Shimmer network. But the proposals also speak of giving each entity (DAO and Tangle Ecosystem Association) 10% of the Shimmer supply for ecosystem funding.

The proposal submitter, Kappy, has recently clarified that his intention was to have 20% of all Shimmer tokens available for ecosystem funding. The mistake lies in calling this a 20% increase (which would add only 16.33% to the actual Shimmer tokens supply for ecosystem funding) instead of a 25% increase in the supply that would be needed to reach the 20% of Shimmer tokes to be distributed for ecosystem funding.

Understandably, several community members are concerned that the text in Firefly could be misinterpreted by voters, leading them to a decision based on wrong or conflicting information.

There are two different interpretations for voters now. Reading only the vote question in Firefly leads to the following interpretation:

Interpretation 1:

Following the currently-used text in the Firefly vote, acceptance of the vote’s proposal will lead to a token distribution that allows 20% of the new supply to be used for ecosystem funding through a 25% increase of the current token supply:

Shimmer network total supply: 1,813,620,509 SMR

Shimmer token allocation to stakers: 1,450,896,407 SMR (80%)

Shimmer token supply for ecosystem funding: 362,724,102 SMR (20%)

Shimmer token supply added and placed in a Community Treasury DAO:
181,362,051 SMR (10%)

Shimmer tokens supply added and given to the Tangle Ecosystem Association: 181,362,051 SMR (10%)

These allocation numbers were stated in Kappy’s initial proposal in this forum:

However, reading the two original proposal posts in the governance forum could lead to a different interpretation:

Interpretation 2:

A token supply increase of 20% calculated from the current supply, which will lead to a lower token allocation for ecosystem funding and result in the following token distribution:

Shimmer token supply produced by stakers: 1.450,896,407 SMR (83.34%)

Shimmer token supply for Ecosystem Funding: 290,179,283 SMR (16.66%)

Shimmer token supply added and placed in a Community Treasury DAO:
145,089,642 SMR (8.33%)

Shimmer tokens supply added and given to the Tangle Ecosystem Association: 145,089,642 SMR (8.33%)

Kappy’s proposal also mentions increasing the supply by only 20%, as does the poll conducted in the follow-up proposal:

The submitter of the proposal was made aware of this possible confusion last Wednesday and changed the calculations in the original proposal in the forum to a token supply that would lead to the 80%/10%-/-10% allocation as stated in Interpretation 1. However, he neglected to change passages of the proposal that still speak of a 20% supply increase.

Based on these corrections in the token supply calculation that represented the initial intention, the question for the vote in Firefly was written to create the additional 20% ecosystem funding allocation based on the new supply to be split between the community DAO and the Tangle Ecosystem Association.

Given that the text of both proposals (the initial one and the follow-up proposal) leaves room for different interpretations and may lead to confusion in some voters, it is imperative o resolve this situation through governance consensus and come to a clear and indisputable decision.

We believe that community governance needs to listen to critiques that have grounds and be able to react to issues that are brought up in the proposal process.

Therefore we ask you to decide if the ongoing vote in Firefly should be stopped and the wording corrected so that it represents the proposal of having a 20% of Fund for the ecosystem, leading to a 25% token supply increase?

Should the currently ongoing Shimmer ecosystem funding vote be canceled, and should there instead be a new vote done with a different wording?
  • YES, CANCEL THE CURRENT VOTE AND DO A NEW VOTE WITH THIS NEW QUESTION TEXT: “Launch the Shimmer network with an additional 25% supply to give the Shimmer Community Treasury DAO and the Tangle Ecosystem Association (TEA) each 10% of the new total supply?”
    “Should we incentivize builders and activity on the Shimmer network by increasing the token supply to give the Shimmer Community Treasury DAO and the Tangle Ecosystem Association (TEA) each 10% of the new total supply?”

0 voters

Given the short timeframe, this poll will be closed on Wednesday, 20 July, at 6 pm CEST. Supposing that the majority of votes in this poll favor canceling the Shimmer Ecosystem funding vote, the vote would be removed from the nodes, and a new vote will start on Thursday, 21 July, at 2 pm CEST with the adjusted question and a new Firefly release.
If the poll is against canceling the vote, the result of the currently ongoing vote will determine the decision.


tbh… this is all wrong.

  1. If we look at Kappys original proposal… we have “+20% supply increase” and the matching numbers everywhere in his post. (no not 1,813,620,509 SMR, but 1,741,075,690 SMR!). Have a look at the first proposal below, as of 04 may - archive[org] —> Kappys original proposal

  2. in his follow up proposal, the exact numbers are missing BUT now he is talking again of a "+20% supply increase

  3. after release of Firefly with this special voting, suddenly new numbers are shown in the vote description in FF - weird. “each 10% of the new supply” ← on what basis? If you now look at the first proposal, there are now also other figures that correspond to a +25% increase (last edited by Kappy at 14th July, 11:37am)

  4. in this post here, even a option c) “keep the vote and increase the shimmer supply +20%” is missing.

I’m not thrilled about the whole process at all, because as i wrote above, everywhere the +20% is popping off, but never the +25% increase. As far as i can see, either the figures were changed again by Kappy shortly before or after the pre-vote start in the first proposal in FF. If this goes through, i’d know what to think of the IOTA DAO in the future. If we work so phlegmatically here now with literally the second! vote and the whole thing looks like “bent after the fact”, that would be even more damaging, especially with IOTA history. That’s my honest opinion.

So. Please add option c) “keep the vote and incease the old SMR Supply +20%” as stated above

Thank you for your attention


We can only continue with our current voting if we have an increase of 20% of the current supply. That was obviously what the proposal was about.

If we talk about an increase of 25%, then we clearly need a new Event in Firefly. This makes absolutely no sense to me.


Confusing here.

  1. 20% based on the old supply of 1.450,896,407 SMR is the original proposale we are also supporting.

  2. 20% of the new supply would mean ~25% of the old supply that isnt supported by us.

Please be precise here!


This vote is for a 20% increase, not a 25%. Either start a new vote or stand by the original and only increase by 20% of vote succeeds.

I’m starting to lose faith in this whole DAO treasury (both IOTA and Shimmer) when I see mess like this.


By all due respect for Kappy and the IF but this is completely going wrong right now. Super confusing for the community. Proposals and Votes need to be accurate and match each other. The community was always in the believe of 20% supply increase. Other thant that the current confusion wouldn‘t exist. I think it is very important to be exact with these kind of stuff.


Let’s go on with this. The intention was to give the EDF and the DAO Shimmer each 10%. Just because we aren’t able to do basic math, the intention didn’t change.

1 Like

We need to cancel it because it’s wrong to have governance votings with room for interpretations. It should be 100% clear what we’re voting about, no room for misinterpretation. This is important for future governance votings. How can you establish trust when you leave too much room for interpretations?


I have always been a supporter of supporting the ecosystem, but to open the door to changing the content of votes while they are running is, in my eyes, unconscionable.

The question about voting in FF was created based on the old (not revised) post by Kappy. Ergo, it was the underlying document. Accordingly, the values from version 3 should also be used for this vote. Not those from version 4.

Normally posts in this forum should be locked for editing as soon as the voting for this post has started in this forum! What would prevent one otherwise to change here already in the form the question which stands to the tuning, while a large part already voted, still after own desire.

This still supports my argumentation that version 3 should continue to be leading and not version 4.


What a mess. Please stop everything and have a vote on the original 20% increase. There should be no short term changes and no room for interpretation in such votes. The way things are going right now, there is definitely no trust being built.


Thanks Kappy for your initial proposal. And thanks Phylo for the explanation and proposing a solution.

If we need so much text to explain what is wrong with the current vote…than it’s clear the vote should not have taken place in the current form.

I also misunderstood the current vote. 20% is 20%.

So to avoid that the current vote could be accepted, it is the best to cancel the current vote.

And insert the new one, only 20%.

Also big companies are dealing with recalls…



Also from my side. I’m really up to the increase wether it will be 20% or 25%.
My Problem at this point is:

Kappy changed the proposal after we voted on here in the forum and phylo proposed two answers in the poll above which will lead to the 25% increase while he knew there were misunderstandings…

In my point of view it really does not matter if we increase be 20% or 25%.

But the communication should be clear and I recommend to stop the proposal and propose a vote for 20%, 25%, or no increase.

  1. We should start a new vote with the clear language about how much the total Shimmer supply will increase.
  2. Proposal need a way to be locked before the voting starts.
  3. The new vote should be for a 20% increase.10%, 10%, 80% feels nice, but we were expecting a 20% total increase.
1 Like

For those still confused about the math:
-Start with 100 Shimmer {100 Total Supply}
–Increase supply by 20% {120 Total Supply}
—20 Shimmer for ecosystem 100 Shimmer for stakers, Ecosystem percentage is 20/120 = 16.67%
–Increase supply by 25% {125 Total Supply}
—25 Shimmer for ecosystem 100 Shimmer for stakers, Ecosystem percentage is 25/120 = 20.08%

1 Like

basic math 100+20% = 120. 10 for treasure and 10 for Foundation. clear math

I also think, just to keep it fair, this third option definitely needs to be included in the poll here!

So couldn’t help to make an account here, for as long as it lasts. Since I am pretty sure I was (one of) the first to notice the math was incorrect here. And I shouldn’t have been (one of) the first, since it isn’t that complicated. So that would be my main point: Stop rushing it…

If you don’t have time to do it properly, don’t do it. If you do have time to do it properly, then do it properly. In the end personally I don’t think it matters really if it is 20% or 25%. But there should be no confusion.

So the initial vote is confusing. I don’t think anyone can honestly disagree with that. Technically it says 25% increase, but with the rest of the history, a significant part thinks it means a 20% increase.
The new proposal here is almost as confusing. Yeah technically it is correct in it. But considering you guys yourself did in the initial proposal the math incorrect, can you really expect the average person not to be confused if you write it like that?

Just make the proposal something like: Do you want to increase the Shimmer supply by 20%/25%, where half of the extra tokens goes to X, and half goes to Y. I am not gonna get involved if it should be 20% or 25% (the original one was 20% of course), but if you write it like that it is clear for everyone.


I think the 81% who voted for an increase don’t care if it’s 20% or 25%. At least that’s how I feel. If this increase helps strengthen the ecosystem then go for it. No projects will move to Shimmer if there is no incentive.

And everyone who is upset that the tokens will be worth less should not forget that they got them as a gift and should be happy about that.

Übersetzt mit DeepL (DeepL Translate App for Windows, macOS, iOS, and Android


Dear IOTA community,

As we are charting into a new world of community-governance, it is obvious that we will make mistakes along the way. With this proposal, a few mistakes were made, namely being exact in the phrasing of the proposal leaving no room for interpretations, and how to deal with such inaccuracies in retrospect. I hope that with this post we can clarify this situation and move forward from this event - hopefully smarter and better for all the future governance proposals.

While @Phylo had initially proposed to stop the current vote in this forum post, it is technically not possible to stop a running vote. The only option the IOTA Foundation would have, is to ignore the outcome of the vote, which would be against our ethos and everything we are working for. Close to 6.2% of the total IOTA supply has already been pledged to this vote with participation constantly increasing.

Therefore, the current vote in Firefly will continue as planned. This proposal will allocate a total of 20% of the new token supply to the Ecosystem Fund, effectively increasing the old Shimmer supply by 25%.

The issue some community members take is the difference of “increasing the current total supply by 20% percent”, vs. “allocating 20% of the later total supply”, which is a difference of 5% dilution of the current supply.

This difference sparked an understandable discussion amongst some community members. The IOTA Foundation acknowledges that the wording of the initial and follow-up proposal was ambiguous. At the same time, as said before, technically the vote can not be stopped and also should not be stopped by the IF.

So, here’s what we can do:

1. Anyone can Initiate a follow-up proposal to invalidate the currently running vote. Even as part of the new governance framework (which should be finalized in the coming weeks), it is foreseen that an already initiated vote can still be invalidated through a new proposal. In order for that proposal to be accepted it needs to collect a larger amount of votes in Firefly than the previous proposal. The community has not agreed on the governance framework yet, but that does not stop anyone to simply make another proposal.
2. Anyone can initiate a proposal to burn part of the Shimmer token supply. If you had interpreted the Shimmer Supply increase proposal differently, and think that a 16.66% allocation for the Ecosystem Fund is more adequate, you can initiate a community proposal to burn part of the newly minted Shimmer tokens.
3. Those who are against the current vote, can simply vote “No” in Firefly to let their voices be heard and vote against the current proposal.

Lastly, I want to highlight the fact that the community now has the opportunity to really participate in the governance of Shimmer, which is absolutely fantastic. This process does however come with certain responsibilities, which includes partaking in the discussions on the Governance Forum, the regular governance calls, and generally following the established process. As a call to action, I invite everyone to be a part of our community on Discord and help to lead the decentralized governance of IOTA. The team is currently finalizing a new governance framework which clearly defines the entire process for the future.


So, the best (and imo only) Way would be to initiate a new follow up proposal with 3 Options:

In short:

  1. 20% Increase of the current SMR-supply (~8,3/8,3/83,3 as initially intended),
  2. 25% Increase of the current SMR-supply (new: 80/10/10)
  3. No increase.

Thats the only way of being a true DAO.