Thank you all (for example @xlzy905, @multitude, @Vow, @Patrick, @tomfutago) for chiming on adding stCELO holders to the airdrop, here in this thread and via other channels. It seems like a majority of community members would like to add stCELO to the airdrop so we will do that.
You can expect updated allocations that account for average stCELO balances in the next few days here: https://github.com/mento-protocol/airdrop-snapshot. I will give another update in this thread when it’s done.
Hey all, I am just catching up on this.
" Smart contract addresses are excluded, except for ReleaseGold addresses (here, we would use the beneficiary address) and Gnosis Safes. Mento stablecoins held in liquidity pools, etc. will not be counted directly (simply not feasible to account for all pools, etc., on all DeFi protocols on Celo), but since depositing stablecoins in liquidity pools leads to volume, they are counted indirectly."
It seems like there are other smart contracts that should be excluded too. For example: any kind of MultiSig smart contracts should definitely be in same category as ReleaseGold ones and Gnosis Safes. (Like core Celo MultiSig contracts).
There are few other “individual” account type of smart contracts, just blanket ignoring them seems not super great. Especially because quite a lot of funds are held in some type of MultiSig type of contracts.
EDIT: I think overall any address that has been “registered” and has had locked CELO in it at some point, is probably well controlled by its owner and should just received the airdrop. I don’t see any reason that you need to identify beneficiary addresses for these.
Hi all,
as discussed, we added average stCELO holdings to the calculation and are updating the airdrop allocations on Github now!
@thezviad, we also looked into supporting additional multisig contracts besides the ones mainly used on Celo (i.e. ReleaseGold and Gnosis Safes) but there does not seem to be an easy way to index all multisig contracts of all the potential different multisig types on Celo. The MultiSig contract you are referring to is for example not deployed via a Factory and therefore it’s unclear how to index all of the ones that are in existence. Even if we could get them indexed, it would require us to add support on the airdrop UI for all these different types of multisigs such that they can actually claim after completing the required KYC on the airdrop UI. We therefore do not plan to add support of other types of multisigs right now.
In general, since the overall amount of distributed tokens is fixed to 50m MENTO, simply including all contracts in the calculation, as some of you suggested, would lead to a large reduction of claimable amounts for the vast majority of folks as contracts like pools on Curve or Uniswap have huge average holdings as well as huge volumes. So it feels like it is in the interest of the community to not include general smart contracts as this would significantly reduce the portion of the 50m claimable by the vast majority of community members.
You should make a token bounty for someone to make a native Safe app for the claim process 
I am only suggesting including contracts that have had “locked” celo in them. No uniswap pool, or curve or any of the others would have “locked” celo because it is a very specific concept to Celo network itself.
Other than StCelo and the deprecated SCelo contracts, I can’t really think of any other contract that would hold locked Celo and not be owned by an individual.
EDIT: to make it more specific, I am talking about this list:
Any “unverified” contract that may not have a beneficiary, excluding StCelo and SCelo contracts should probably get an airdrop. The chances of those not being individual account is very small and their total amount is also not a lot compared to the rest of the accounts that are getting airdrops already.
Mostly i’m wondering why a supply of 1 billion tokens was chosen. It seems rather high given that effectually mento is splitting CELO, which itself has a market cap of less than 1 billion.
That’s great about MENTO token launch
The time has come! We’re gearing up to send the proposal today. In preparation, I want to highlight some differences between this forum post and the content of the final governance proposal markdown we will soon submit to GitHub.
First, we’ve removed references to Hedgey. We haven’t entirely discounted using Hedgey for the allocation because a protocol that recently went through a hack can now be more hardened. But we don’t want to lock that decision in at the time as it is, in any case, a technicality. The vesting allocations will be deployed when the token becomes transferrable, so we still have time to choose the best protocol for the job.
Secondly, in the last couple of months, it became apparent that we need the protocol to fund legal, operational, and growth initiatives that need to originate from the Mento Protocol Foundation. This foundation helps execute the will of the community. To finance this foundation during times in which the MENTO token is non-transferable, the proposal suggests that a loan of 800k USD and a maturity of 1 year is provided by the Mento Reserve to the Mento Protocol Foundation. The loan amount will be financed from the BTC and ETH part of the Mento Reserve. It will cover
entity setup costs, legal costs, and early foundation expenses required to foster Mento ecosystem growth. The foundation is expected to receive funding from the Mento Community Treasury to repay the loan and cover future expenses.
Proposal is live 
Celo Governance by Staking Fund
Dear all,
thanks for voting on the governance proposal, that was a great turnout. As a next step as discussed, the news about the Mento airgrab are live. Check out this Twitter thread to learn more and see how to qualify for the airdrop:
