Clarification on Vesting Contract schedule change and subsequent claim experiences

General
1

Hello Supra Community,

There has been some confusion regarding the token release process and why certain individuals can claim tokens from contracts despite the shift to a quarterly schedule. Originally, the contracts were not designed to support modifications to the release schedule. Below, we clarify when this change occurred, detail the adjustments made to specific fields and parameters to accommodate it, and explain why some users may receive tokens earlier than expected.

Understanding the Vesting Schedule Update

Recently, changes were made to how the vesting contract calculates periods and fractions. This update was necessary to move from monthly vesting to quarterly vesting, while still keeping the overall outflow of tokens fair and consistent. Here’s what actually happened and what it means for you.

How the Vesting Contract Works

  • The contract tracks three important parameters:
    • period_duration – the length of one vesting period, stored in seconds.
    • vesting_fraction – how much of the allocation vests per period.
    • last_vested_period – a counter that records how many vesting periods had elapsed when a user last claimed.

For example, under monthly vesting, a user’s last claim after 8 months would mean their last_vested_period = 8.

The Change from Monthly to Quarterly

When the team moved vesting from 1-month periods to 3-month periods after our community vote, two things had to change:

  1. period_duration was increased (1 month → 3 months).
  2. vesting_fraction was increased to match (e.g., 5% per month → 15% per quarter), so that the total outflow stayed the same.

But there was also a side effect:

  • To stay consistent, the contract divided last_vested_period by 3.
  • Example: A user who last claimed at the 8th month (so last_vested_period = 8) would now have last_vested_period = 2, to indicate that 2 quarters had passed at the time of user’s last claim.
  • The issue: This “integer division” caused the contract to incorrectly track that the last claim was at 6th month instead of at 7th/8th month since 7/8th month do not align with quarters.

The Temporary Side Effect
Because of that, for the first quarter after the change, some users were able to claim slightly more tokens than expected:

  • If you claimed at the 7th or 8th month but didn’t claim at the 9th, the contract treated your last claim as if it happened at the 6th month.
  • So when quarterly vesting kicked in, you could claim 3 months’ worth of tokens again — even though you had already partially claimed in month 7 or 8.

This early outflow only happened once and only for those specific users. After that, the vesting flows normally. In other words, at every quarter successful vesting would happen only once and payout for a user would be a minimum of (i) one quarter worth of token as per schedule or (ii) whatever is remaining to be vested from their total allocation.

Important: The contract never lets anyone receive more tokens than their total allocation (init_amount). The contract accurately tracks left_amount for every user and every payout is subtracted from this field. Therefore, any temporary higher outflow earlier simply means the last vesting chunk will be smaller, balancing things out.

What Happens After 20th November 2025?
Here’s how things look for different groups of users by November 20th:

Users who claimed at 7/8 months and again after 21st August 2025:
→ They already had the “increased outflow” earlier, so in November they’ll get 3 months’ worth of tokens as expected.

Users who claimed at the 9th month (August) before the change:
→ They will get exactly 3 months’ worth of tokens in November.

Final Note
If your contract is linked to staking, none of this applies. Those unlocking schedules have not changed at all, because staking contracts work differently and were unaffected by this adjustment.

In short: The only noticeable effect of this change was for users who claimed in the 7th/8th month but skipped the 9th month. They got a slightly larger payout earlier, but their overall allocation remains capped. From November onward, vesting flows normally for everyone.

11 Likes
2

Thanks @sjoshi (Dr. Joshi) for the overview.

At genesis, these smart contracts were not designed to be changed. Community wanted an adjustment to 5 min (real time) vesting, but it was really awful. Then we had our community vote to move to quarterly. This post by Dr. Joshi explains the nuance as to why the smart contracts behaved the way they did.

There wasn’t any smart contract hack, and no one is being paid out more tokens than they are allocated. This issue, however, did allow a small segment of folks access 3 months of tokens all at once. Towards the end of November, anyone that claimed these tokens early wont be able to claim as many later.

To be clear, no one is getting more tokens than they otherwise should. But yes, our intention has been since the community vote that no one would have access to vested tokens until November 20th.

I hope this helps clears up the situation for our Supra Community.

7 Likes
3

That was an unfortunate event that has shaken the faith of some community members. What’s important is that such events do not happen again in the future.

Could you please clarify the answers to these questions?

  1. Those who are locked for 3 months will have their tokens staked for additional yield, correct?
  2. Before each new 3-month unlock period begins, we will hold another community vote to decide the future of the unlocks, correct?
  3. Is there a way to pressure VCs who have shown a tendency to hurt Supra’s price and image for their personal short-term gain into acting more reasonably?

Thank you!

2 Likes
4

Thank you for this clarification, i personaly hope this will bring down the recent chaous that occur after the incident. in SUPRA we believe.

5 Likes
5

Hello @StoicSupra,

Answers are in-line and I invite other teammates and community members to diplomatically, respectfully, and eruditely continue these conversations in this public forum.

1. Those who are locked for 3 months will have their tokens staked for additional yield, correct?

As per the original proposal here, Liquid Staking wasn’t part of the original proposal and actually it didn’t come up in the conversation thread to my knowledge. I think it would have been nice to do, but there are 515K+ accounts and it may have been infeasible to manage given our timelines.

2. Before each new 3-month unlock period begins, we will hold another community vote to decide the future of the unlocks, correct?

We do want to have quarterly Community Governance votes. I believe the next is planned for mid-October.

Supra is moving towards progressive decentralization. Community engagement here, we hope, will eventually translate to reputation accumulation, which over time will provide a subtle influence on future voting – instead of having a plutocracy where those with most tokens make all the rules.

Until then, proposals will come from the Foundation delegated to Labs, who can take ideas from the community. Over time this should become completely decentralized, whereas any community member who accumulates enough reputation can begin proposing governance topics to have voting on.

3. Is there a way to pressure VCs who have shown a tendency to hurt Supra’s price and image for their personal short-term gain into acting more reasonably?

We have communicated with them, they actually did not respond yet. Previously, we have received responses such as, “it is our right to do as we please.” This is technically true in a permissionless network. Our only recourse is to continue to build culture, motivation, and momentum through continuous value creation. This particular group is based in a South East Asian country with a lot of civil unrest at the moment. This might be related to their behavior.

The decentralized ethos we adopted where we allowed syndicates who had large retail followings, indeed, as you can all see, has its own breed of challenges. I can only surmise and hope that these challenges we are enduring are ultimately healthy for our long-term strength.

Many of our struggles today would have been mitigated if we only let well-capitalized VCs into Supra pre-TGE. Let’s see, I still think our decentralized ethos is the long-term best strategy as long as we all keep going forward together.

5 Likes
6

The reaction to this is just what happens when price action is at all time lows. The fact of the matter is the rest of the altcoin market already dumped more than Supra today and caught up with this VC sell off.

We all take the risk and buy hoping price will go up, and pretty much all of us who have bought Supra are down on our investment, but that’s all part of the game. The only metric SupraLabs can control is delivering on the tech and milestones; either you believe in the tech or not - but one thing I’m certain of is the Supra team in delivering as they have done so far. The market just takes time to catch up.

In the crypto space if you’re not prepared to put up with the pain, to battle, and to build through it, then you are not deserving of the reward at the other end.

5 Likes
7

Hello there. Aren’t there written contracts with the VCs? How it is possible for you to change the vesting schedule without their confirmation and do it with a vote that only 74 people have voted on? Can you also change the amount? Might as well do a new vote where you extend the vesting by 100 years or even better just vote that next vesting is gonna be the last one and you are not gonna send any other tokens owed

2 Likes
8

Hello. Thanks for the clarifications. All this talk brings up a few questions that I’ve been wanting to ask.

1.) How long will it take for VCs to claim all of their tokens?

2.) Will the team begin a marketing campaign to help spread awareness of Supra?

3.) Will a token burn mechanism be implemented at some point?

2 Likes
9

I find it all really interesting (user behaviour – VC behaviour), and the challenges we’re facing now will shape Supra’s long-term future. Before long, these hurdles will just be a distant memory.

4 Likes
10

Hi there, answers are in line:

re:
How it is possible for you to change the vesting schedule without their confirmation and do it with a vote that only 74 people have voted on?

The vote was open only to node operators and dApps. Not everyone showed up but a majority did and thus the vote was passed. The details are available at Vote.Supra.com

re:
Can you also change the amount? Might as well do a new vote where you extend the vesting by 100 years or even better just vote that next vesting is gonna be the last one and you are not gonna send any other tokens owed

Backers are receiving their tokens, the amount they are due, just not every 10 min drip or monthly. It’s now voted to be released quarterly, but the vesting is the same.

1 Like
11

re:
How long will it take for VCs to claim all of their tokens?

It depends on their investment round. Some of the folks that invested later at higher valuations had faster vesting terms. The last set of backers are around 90% done vesting.

Others have 10% at TGE and 5% per month, so those folks are about 65% done vesting.

The largest VCs who have more ability to hold than the smaller ones that came later have quarterly vesting over 3 more years. More details are here:

We are also working on a Token Dashboard for full transparency. That should be available in about 4-6 weeks.

re:
2.) Will the team begin a marketing campaign to help spread awareness of Supra?

Yes, we have and continue to do so. We have already worked with several firms including:
Hype Partners. Serotonin, Market Across, Gelo, Hello Labs, Blockworks, and others.

We are looking to work with another well known Public Relations firm soon.

re:
3.) Will a token burn mechanism be implemented at some point?

We actually already burn tokens on each TX, but our fees are TX fees are extremely small because we can handle so much capacity. TX fees as a business model is not ideal, in fact, fees should be as small as possible and blockchains should be public goods. Then you may ask, how do we expect to generate sustainable and substantial revenue, this is the main highlight of our Keynote at Permissionless NYC earlier this year, it’s really powerful and we are close to bringing this online:

Watch here

p.s.
we’ll be transitioning to “freezing” tokens, which has the same affect as burning, but they may enter the Ecosystem Treasury later, perhaps 3 years later, as another means to build up Network Owned Liquidity.

3 Likes
12

Yeah! Our ethos was decentralization. We’re going through growing pains now as result, we have 3.2K backers pre-TGE and also 512K airdrop folks.

Many of these backers are part of syndicates that are retail based, who don’t have the ability to hold long-terms as some of our bigger names.

I feel like we’re in the midst of a fever and we’re sweating it out… but once we’re through this, we’ll be stronger for it.

3 Likes
13

You didn’t answer my main question about vesting. Is there not a contract with the VCs that was specifying when and how much they were gonna get? How are you able to change that only by a vote? And if that can be done, can it also be voted on to extend the vesting by 100 years? Might as well. Or here is a serious idea. Unlock 100% of the tokens to all backers. Let them bleed out with way lower prices than they would and then the growth can steadily start

14

100% one hell of a ride for you guys. very stressful - like you said above one set of backers are 90% done this is good. distribution taking place helping the decentralisation long term. patience is a virtue few have IMO

1 Like
15

Their amount of tokens and vesting schedule is the same. The decentralized vote by node operators and dApps shifted drip from monthly release to quarterly unlocks.

Can you share a bit about your background?
The first SUP (Supra Upgrade Proposal) was announced on X and discussed on public webinars and also publicly posted on our Forum in July for anyone to comment.

Blockchains, ultimately, believe it or not, are ran and operated by nodes, who can technically change the rules as they so please, fwiw. Outside of the Supra Team and Foundation, dApps and Node Operators have the most skin in the game – they are actively investing sweat equity and building, and as a result, we felt their voice mattered the most. We are also not interested in a plutocracy where the largest token holders make all the rules, we think it’s a flawed approach to long-term network health.

re:
Or here is a serious idea. Unlock 100% of the tokens to all backers.

Another project tried that recently, it did not work. The risk may be too high when we have non-VCs in Supra, whose interest may be purely self-oriented.

Progressively decentralizing governance is important, and the first SUP (Supra Upgrade Proposal #1 was a good step in this direction.

We are preparing for the next upcoming vote, let’s have active discussions about that. The next vote, as far as I know, may begin as soon as 3-4 weeks from now.

We’re also actively looking to use this forum as a mechanism for folks to gain reputation scores. At some point, we hope that anyone with enough rep score can propose topics to be considered for public voting. We’re actively studying Tezos’ model as well as other Liquid Democracy models. Getting decentralized governance right is going to take time, but it needs to happen and we are well on the way towards it.

Let’s continue to keep conversations and dialogue thoughtful and well-intentioned for the betterment of all long-term stakeholders of Supra.

3 Likes
16

I’m just an investor who invested in the round that was returned from FTX, an earlier one and on the public one locking all of my tokens. I was always getting monthly unlocks. The only change was that they shifted a week earlier. Now I didn’t get anything and saw that it changed to quarterly and didn’t get the latest month of unlocks. I just don’t like the fact that contracts can change with votes cause we know that no one is gonna pursue the matter cause every legal means are gonna be slow…

17

dude you invested in what is in spirit a DPOS blockchain and you don’t like the fact smart contracts can change with votes… you’ve had nearly a decade to research this fact :man_shrugging:

1 Like