Early Supporters

The DAO has launched which is great, and things are looking exciting for Fluence.

I know that FPT holders have concerns about all the support they gave early on in the project.
Now that the DAO is launched, I think we could use it to resolve this long standing issue in a way that is fair.

Let’s discuss.


Well let’s review the conditions of the presale here.

As a starting point, we got a base multiplier of 10 because the supply increased from 100m to 10b that’s surely not to be discussed.
Taking the 40% price increase from the original terms of the public sale, that could be considered another 1.4.
Adding the optional 25% bonus leads to an FPT:FLT exchange rate of 10 x 1.4 x 1.25 = 17.5 FLT per 1 FPT (1:17.5).
Of which the majority comes without vesting, with the bonus having a vesting requirement of 120 days which can be cancelled early.

That’s a starting point for a discussion. The current official position is as follows: an unknown exchange rate and an unconditional 24 months of vesting with a linear release starting after 12 months.

I’m open to any reasonable and decent proposal that honors the dedication and forbearance of those who believed and still believe in the project after six years have passed without any communication.


Isn’t the multiplier 100?

1 Like

the vesting period is the biggest problem. we’ve been vesting enough.

the FPT:FLT ratio should be brought in line with the new emissions. and any bonuses along the way.


Since there is not sufficient information provided and I have no idea who in the community will be voting on this please see some additional details below.

Inline with Iruwen’s post please see the below:

In 2017 a presale was launched with the token FPT, with the intention that a mainsale would shortly follow Q4 2017. Needless to say there were a series of delays and changes to the plan and now we find ourselves in 2024, approx 7 years later.

The presale represented 6M tokens and 6% of the projects token supply. I believe this hasn’t changed.
Initial supply: 100m tokens | Todays supply: 1b tokens. 1:10 conversion.

In regards to tokens:
During the years 2017-2024 mostly in 2018 the team made certain promises to early investors. The key ones are below:

+40% - To compensate for delays in 2018 the team decided to a discount on the next round of 40%.
+25% - Added Tokens (bonus) for participants that agreed to not take advantage of the buyback in 2018.
x10 - Token Supply Increase in 2024.

The above deals with the tokens: and as per the above agreements the token exchange should be exchanged at a 1FPT : 17.50FLT as Iruwen’s stated.

After these 7 years, of holding on and essentially vesting this class of supporters are finally able to convert their FPT : FLT and should be able to in accordance with agreements that went along the way.

I believe there is no real discussion on this part as it is very straight forward.

In regards to vesting:
In 2017 when the initial raise took place there was no vesting period, this was specifically talked about in the whitepaper. Stating that the conversion would be available via smart-contract and the tokens would be unlocked for those that want to sell at market pricing.

Today we are exactly 2384 days from the date of the presale.
So this class of participants have essentially vested over approx 7 years.
Hence my position is that there should be no vesting requirement for the remaining participants of this class which is estimated to be < 65 individuals.

My position:
Again as Iruwen’s stated I believe anyone from this group is open to any reasonable and decent proposal that allows everyone to come out content, but ideally what I would say what I want is:
1FPT : 17.5FLT | No vesting period.


I can’t edit that typo above - FLT has a supply of 1b of course, not 10b. Thus x10.


Considering the two months lockup for the developer rewards, this is something I’d unconditionally agree with ex gratia.


I think the specifics can be dealt with so that everyone wins. An important thing to note is, there only exists < 62 holders of FPT at this moment. From those we don’t know which have been redeemed for eth earlier so possibly there is less. From that less amount we are taking about 6% of supply so when we are talking about < 6% of the supply being liquid. When people are talking about price dumping i feel like I’m missing something or there is no metrics in mind considering PEPE a meme coin did 1T in volume yesterday. So even if someone decided to sell: the market would or should re-establish market pricing relatively quickly. If not existing shareholders or vc firms would buy back the supply as they would be getting a discount on their last round. This is my position. That we are all talking about dumping but effectively it shouldn’t be a concern of a product of value.

Additionally its better the price dumps earlier with a 6% circulating supply and reestablishes than it dumps later when there is a total of 50% circulating supply. No one sin their right mind should dispute this.

The concept of offering a OTC buyback could be great but i think it shouldn’t be mandatory, I believe market should establish pricing and that < 6% circ supply with a estimated value of $12m based on the last raise should not be a big concern.

And in the case that the price does fall below par value the DAO can vote on the option to buy back tokens to reestablish pricing and add it back into the treasury. Let math and finance remain math and finance and lets let the market determine real fair value. This is going to happen anyways.

All the options proposed earlier are great but i don’t agree with them as they: limit supply to those already with interest instead of letting new participants in, try to affect the market determining fair value pricing by curtailing any sales to be out of the market or to a single market maker that controls pricing.

The only option I could get behind would be something like #1. But with the amount of supply we are talking about i still dont think its really necessary to have the vesting.

Updated: It theoretically would be 10.5% of supply at a 1:17.5 conversion ratio if all 6m FPT were converted according to my calculation, sorry forgot to account for the token bonuses etc. The true number is tough to get to as only the team knows who took advantage of the buy back.


It would be good to have some numbers.
How many Fluence Tokens will be distributed to Initial Seed FPT Holders.

If it is just 10 MIL, then this will cause no problem at launch. What is possible is a 3 Months Weekly Vesting with 1 Month Cliff after Token is tradeable.

For me, this is sort of middle ground and would take away a possible dump pressure.

If you look at the current participation, not much FPT holders left.

Beside this: Dont list at second tier. Do just one Listing at Binance.


Good to see this raised and finally being discussed properly for a resolution after a very long time. Firstly, thank you too everyone above who has prepared the calculations in relation to what a logical and fair conversion would look like. I would support the proposal of a 17.5FLV : 1 FPT conversion.

I am also comfortable with a short locking period that would unlock 33% per month for three months. (If that is a real is a true concern of the community). As a supporter for the past 7 years, I am here to continue to support strong governance of the project.


Quite a few people asked on Telegram about this, so participation here isn’t really representative.
Here’s the presale contract for reference:

And a list of all relevant contributions sorted by size (with really tiny ones filtered out):

I didn’t check how many came from unique addresses, but FPT isn’t ERC-20 and thus not tracked properly.

/e: 90% of the source addresses are unique.


Does this also incident the people that didn’t yet convert?
It’s all speculation until we get the actual numbers from the team.

1 Like

I am also an investor who invested in 2017.

I also agree with FPT:FLT = 1:17.5
Two-year vesting doesn’t make sense.
I 100% agree with @Iruwen’s opinion.

1 Like

I am missing transparency here from the fluenc team to be honest.
So i am completely in with what howard said. Also, I am not really sure why there is a discussion needed at all. Terms and numbers are straightforward that do not let room for other ideas.

As for me, like Howard mentioned. 1FPT : 17.5FLT | No vesting period.


Has the Fluence team provided any official statement or clarity on early supporters? They only thing I can find is a vague statement in the discord from 2022 “No information has been published” and a comment in 2023 from Evgeny that says early supporters get nothing and the DAO can propose something.

The Tokenomics on launch says

  • Fluence Labs 20%
  • Investors 25.4%
  • Launch pool/MM 5%
  • DAO Treasury 34.6%
  • Community reward 5%;
  • Capacity incentive 10%

However, “Investors” doesn’t mention Presale participants. So, are we not considered in this table at all? Are we at the mercy of the DAO to distribute from the Treasury?

Fluence didn’t require the DAO to distribute those 65.4%. So, where do the early supporters get their share of FLT from? From the DAO Treasury? From Fluence Labs share? From Investors?

If from the DAO, what incentive does any DAO voter have to distribute some of the Treasury to those Presale participants?

I see mention in the discussion above about a 2 year vesting. If we’re not included in the “Fluence Labs” or “Investors” groups, who’s to say there’s any vesting, let alone a distribution at all?

I can’t find any official statement. We need clarity.


I agree with multiplier and reducing the vesting period. I would be happy to receive the bonus & discounts the first year and the rest a year later.


The original Tokensale said “Pre-ICO” 6%. So, that’s the expectation here.

6% of the old Tokensale of resulted in 6M FPT for Pre-ICO Early Supporters.

  • However, some owners backed out. That would be proportionately distributed back to holders at that time (including founders & pre-ico & investors).

6% of new Tokenomics is 60M FLT.

  • It’s possible we could be diluted by future funding rounds, but then again, the team should also have been diluted as well.

Some number less than 6M FPT would then be converted into some number less than 60M FLT.

60M FLT / 6M FPT = 10x or greater

However, if we treat the Pre-ICO the same as the Investors (after all they were the FIRST investors)
Funding rounds:

  • Pre-seed: ?
  • Seed: $6m ?
  • Series A: $9m ?

15M? $USD = 253,963,786 FLT
= average 0.06 $USD / FLT paid by investors

If we treat the Pre-ICO investors as an average (not the earliest, not the newest)

= 16,666,666m FLT for Pre-ICO paid at average investor price of 0.06 $USD

16.6M FLT / 6M FPT = 2.8x or greater

So, even if we’re lumped in with the “average” investor, that’s still at least 1.6% of the total FLT and likely more, since they were in fact the earliest investors.

Does my math check out?

I am not sure how many investors backed out and how those numbers influenced the early funding picture. That’s something we’d need transparency on to put real clarity on things. We’d also need to know the breakdown of FLT shared with investors and at what dollar amount. Pre-ICO investors should be at least be matching the best FLT award per dollar in the Investors group. We would need clarity on that.

On that note, without further clarity, I support the 17.5x proposal. I’m open to a partial immediate release with partial lock up.


Since it seems the team is not looking to guide this and it will go on forever as a discussion I’m stepping up with a FORMAL PROPOSAL.


Those that agree with the below statements please like the post to show support, reply if you reject the idea and the basis for the rejection. Once the position has gained at least 10 likes we ask for the DAO to treat the matter as soon as possible. We ask for it to be treated as 2 seperate points and 2 seperate votes, each point on an individual bases. All right and remedies are reserved for those that require such.

Vote 1.
Conversion Ratio: 1FPT : 17.5FLT
The numbers, math and reasoning behind the above is clearly discussed above and no one has disputed or disagreed with this to this point.

Vote 2
Vesting period - No vesting.
The reasoning again is discussed above but the key principle is to allow free markets to be free markets noting that the circulation release we are talking about is < 15.5% of supply if all are released together with the 5% of airdrops.

Since this class of participants, presale, has no representation in the DAO, which at this point is assumed to consist of only the founders, this proposal is in reservation of all rights and remedies to those it may affect.


Your math does not math. Please look at the above posts by myself and Iruwen.
Also look at previous posts by the founding team in the channels. The distribution was not diluted they did a conceptual split to add more liquidity to the token supply.

@Howard. Thanks, I’ve updated the math. Your post which indicates the promises made by the team is the most clear path forward. I support your argument.