IDEA: $XIO to $ZERO | Time-Variable Token Distributions #XIOfeedback

While not finalized and something that would still need to be approved by the community, we have shared with the community our intentions and motivations of having an $XIO to $ZERO migration in the future.

We believe this migration process gives us the perfect opportunity to reevaluate the tokenomics of Blockzero Labs from the ground up.

Does the current $XIO model align with our goals?
What are the ways we can improve it?
With a capped supply, will it be sustainable in the future?
Can we move to a 100% truly decentralized model by putting the governance of Blockzero Labs entirely in the token?

These are some questions and conversations we would like to have with you, the community! Let’s bring out the whiteboard and give the core asset of Blockzero Labs a complete review.

One of the items Zachary Dash discusses in this video is the idea of a time-variable distribution strategy. What this would mean, is that instead of receiving future tokens simply by how much (quantity) of $XIO you hold, you would receive tokens based on how long you’re willing to lock them. Let’s give an example.

Bob has 100 $XIO
Jeff has 50 $XIO

In the current model, Bob is receiving twice as much future tokens as Jeff is on a daily basis. Instead, if we used a time-variable distribution strategy, it would look like this.

Bob has 100 $ZERO and chooses to lock them for 10 Days.
Jeff has 50 $ZERO and chooses to lock them for 100 Days.

Bob’s “Blockzero Score” would be 1000 (100 * 10)
Jeff’s “Blockzero Score” would be 5000 (50 * 100)

This means, Jeff would be earning 5x more than Bob on a daily basis, despite having less tokens, because he is showing more commitment and confidence in the network.

For #XIOfeedback, would love to hear some general feedback and pros/cons of this model.

Bonus points: Please add any ideas you have on how to improve the $ZERO tokenomics.


Hey buddy, this would affect only the wallet tokens, not the XLP, since it is already locked… right? How it would work for those who are already on XLP?

well, the time variable is something we need. This way we can exclude all the people that see xio/zero as a simple “investment” or “pump and dump” or “just another crypto”. Why? Because only people that understand and BELIEVE in the blockzero project will want to lock their token without fear.

I, for example, could lock all my xio for 3 months without any doubt. And three months are a small amount of time, since my xio are locked in the liquidity pool for XLP for more than a year now :smiley:

1 Like

I’m hoping all of this is after ETH 2.0.
All the impermanent losses of LPs, if you need to unstake, migration fees, locking fees and voting fees.
Not everyone has 5+ ETH
I’ve always seen XIO as X(token) Input Output and haven’t seen the reason to switch token name.
I do like the locking idea, if it can be implemented with LPs as well.


I’m not comfortable with $ZERO ticker, we may evaluate some other options: $BZERO or $BZRO.

About the governance I like the option I still think the XLP and XSI should have a rule to give more voting power for the guys with smaller wallets but who are very committed with the community.

I believe the limit is not bad since we create the index fund with some of the tokens launched. It will add tangible value for the BlockZero token. The more value created the more people will desire the token. Why we need more BlockZero tokens for?

1 Like

I assume this applies to the token earning rather than the XLP.

I’m not against this, but it doesn’t really excite me. It could put people off from testing the waters, as no one wants to join a new community and immediately make a long term commitment.

That’s why I think rather than locking up tokens for a set amount of time, it should be more like the xlp, where tokens aren’t locked but your rewards increase over time.


I agree with DaveGfK. I see the value in having less XIO circulating. It should increase the price yes. But it will be a barrier to entry to new people.
Even now people who just hold XIO get 4times less than the XLP. That can be discouraging and often cause thoughts “well I am valued that much less I might as well jump on another token”
This would be similar. Someone new might be discouraged. As they might think “well if I don’t stake for a year I get so much less than XYZ, maybe i should just invest somewhere else”

Also let’s not forget the benefit of just being able to hold a coin and get the money from it, no staking or locking required. You don’t have to pay gas fees (twice to lock and unlock). It’s a lot easier to explain to someone new to crypto. Just buy it and HODL and you get new tokens.

So overall I am on the fence. Not against but also not overly into it.

This is a better idea, reward long term holders and incentivise newcomers to hang onto their tokens for higher multipliers rather than scare them off with locking mechanisms and the fees that go with that. This is also more interoperable with the XLP and XIO in the Flash dapp. Personally wouldn’t have an issue with locking up my XIO but I’ve been with the project from the beginning, think newcomers would have a different idea. Then if someone wants to buy a bag with say 0.1x multiplier for a new token just to dump it afterwards then so be it - long time holders are earning 10x per token or something like that. Same outcome, easier to implement and integrate, saves network fees.
On a separate note, I really like the ticker being $XIO and although initially excited about $ZERO, would now prefer it to remain unchanged. I know we’re early days but consistency and brand recognition are important, $XIO as a link to the past is a good thing in my opinion.

Edit to add: I don’t think making changes to the supply cap is a good idea at all. For there to be trust and faith in a network, some things need to be clear and set in stone… max supply is one of these unless stated as dynamic before distribution, maybe i’m misunderstanding and the proposal is only for the allocation of undistributed XIO out of the 100 million. Sustainability depends on growth, not supply. Distribution needs to diminish as circulation approaches the cap, most cryptocurrencies work this way and we just hope that value keeps up with minted tokens to sustain the ecosystem.

I do think the multiplier is a good idea and ensure the involvement of the community on th long term and I would for sure approve any ideas that could bring value to the blockzero ecosystem.

Although Iam a bit confused with how it would work. XLP already has this function and enable a multiplier ratio to anybody on future tokens depending on the share of XIO they have allocated in the program. So… would there be a compounding multiplier based on XLP + staked $ZERO? We’d have 3 layers to consider… people simply holding tokens, others participating to the XLP and then others that would stake for a determined amount of time. Wouldn’t it be complicated to set up and explain?

Back on the token migration, Iam also wondering what will happen with the XIO under the XLP. Considering that any swap between 2 tokens must be done manually, does it mean that there will be both XIO and ZERO under circulation? Or will XIO holders on the XLP be compelled to get the funds out at one point in time and swap them for ZERO?
if that happens, would you be able to give back full access to the benefits they had before removing once getting their funds again into the XLP? Or are you thinking of a special reward (or multiplier even) for people compelled to get their XIO out (let say for example that I have invested 1000 XIO on the system for 12 months already and I need to get them out because of the migration to ZERO - will you then compensate the loss of the 12 months earned in ZERO tokens? I don’t have time to make the calculation but for example swap 1000 XIO for 2000 ZERO or more so the person do not lose in this process)

I definitely think that people more committed to the project should be more rewarded but there are many factors to take into consideration and as I heard many times in the past “the simpler, the better”. So as far as you can apply this a simple way (and explain it easily to new comers) then Iam all in :slight_smile:

1 Like

I Strongly hope that the tokenomics of XIO are not changed, at least not until the XLP/XSI funds are gone.

XIO investors have bought into XIO, Blockzero Labs and the whole scheme based on the tokenomics and I believe changing them could be very detrimental, unless someone comes up with an amazing/revolutionary change.

The video did not really propose any benefits or cons, which is fine, but maybe it would have been good to have a bit more meat to the discussion before leaving it with the community.

We already have Time as a factor in so many ways, so why include it here as well?

If we did want to time-lock XIO/ZERO also, how would that work?

I assume that we would have to develop a mirror XIOStake or something, where we could effectively FLASH XIO to gain XIO-LP tokens.

I do not see any way to combine this with the current XLP scheme, as there is no time-locking feature on Uniswap.

I don’t currently see any reason to change the token name, especially since ZERO is now taken by a decent looking exchange.

Regardless if the token is renamed or not, I hope that XIO stays the same, but I am intrigued with what the community will come up with.


If time-locking 1k tokens for 100 years equal 10k tokens for 10 years or 100k tokens for a year, wouldn’t just select the longest duration and move the risk/capital to someplace else?

1 Like


I do like the idea of rewarding more people locking their tokens.

Curves actually does something like that.
When you deposit some tokens within the protocol, you can see how much reward you will get.

  • There is the minimal reward, for everyone providing liquidity.
  • There is the maximal reward, for those locking enough Curve (the system actually requires you to lock a certain amount of days… so you can either lock 100 tokens 10 days or 1000 tokens 1 day for example to get the full reward while your tokens are locked).

I think this system is pretty cool:

  • for those who don’t want to get engaged too much, you can earn a reward easy
  • for those who believe in the project and are deply invested (you can lock your tokens 4 years!!) you have the full reward.
  • the locked tokens are, of course, tokens that will not be sold or won’t be in the market, so it support the price too.

Another inspiration from Curve is about the governance; if I’m right, you need to have tokens locked to participate into the decisions.
That could be something smart to add to: locked tokens earn more in reward + have more vote power than other tokens, as they belong to people more engaged into the project.

At the moment, I’m not super keen on a token migration. At least not unless the advantages are clear and obvious.

For one, the XIO/ETH price is near an all time low, which means a lot of people have unrealized impermanent losses on their LP tokens at the moment. Personally, I’ve got about -25% 12.5% IL right now, which translates to a significant share of my overall holdings. A token migration at this price would cost me thousands of dollars in the short term. A bit of a selfish reason I guess, but it is what it is. I’d be curious to see how much IL would have to be realized for the entire liquidity pool if we migrated to a new token now.

Second, I would reconsider the $ZERO ticker now that there is another popular project using it.

I’m sorry I’m addressing the TVTD idea, I’ll have to think more about it :slightly_smiling_face:


I think I am personally against it. I don’t see the difference between this and the XLP beyond forcing someone to commit tokens to hope to get a decent distribution down the road w/o the added benefit of providing xio more liquidity (not to mentioned any pool fees). It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I see the benefit of having the tokens locked up, and that’s great and everything, but it almost feels like a type of golden handcuffs for users. People are hesitant to lock things up in a liquidity pool because of impermanent loss; I imagine it would be even greater w/ a future token of unknown value, quality, or functionality in addition to any gas fees that end up being required.

Additionally, unless the tokens obtained from adding to a liquidity pool are able to be used as well, people in the XLP will be short changed. THEN, if they ARE able to be used, it starts cannibalizing the Aqua ecosystem.

A modification to the idea could be to use the XLP multiplier as part of the equation for future token distributions. Especially as xio runs out. It will add the incentive to stay in the XLP and provide reward for those that have actually been around for a long time.

For example: if you are in the xlp for a year, you have the 3x multiplier, that multiplier could be used to adjust the claim dapps multiplier or even used to modify the base rate for the individual.

A question:

  • What’s stopping me from locking only a portion (50 xio) for 5000 days or some other obscene number of days to get large token distributions? (easily fixed I am sure. but never the less)

• Minting ZERO tokens as needed instead of hard set XIO in XSI/XLP/Foundation wallets: I love how this would clean up the accounting aspect. We aren’t constantly slowly using up remaining supply, risking hitting no tokens remaining for XSI or XLP or Foundation one day. Not having bloated wallets that have tokens not in use. Removes the risk of hacked wallets and drained funds, transfers that risk to the smart contract only.
• Time variable: As a LP, it does not excite me to lock up large amounts of liquidity for more TBD rewards if it means I have to choose between that and locking up my LPs in AQUA protocol.

• Foundation: I’m not aware of any negatives this would create. We mint the ZERO required for monthly infrastructure costs and other governed voted on funding reasons.
• XSI: no changes required that I’m aware of. We mint the XSI rewards needed every month
• XLP: If we duplicate the existing XLP reward system and migrate to ZERO, if there is no ZERO wallet with 25million starting tokens to count down from, we would instead need to count up of total XIO rewarded so far to date to determine the halvening thresholds. With the current centralized system, that should be doable. Adding an additional transaction type of tracking manual payouts from support cases would be the only additional requirement.

• XLP: This introduces the option to rework the XLP into a smart contract rewards program.
• Buy back programs with how smart contracts work to auto buy more tokens with drowned liquidity
• NFTs recognized by ZERO smart contract as ways to do other things: increased rewards, only citizens NFTs have the ability to burn ZERO tokens to extract from index fund.

• LP? Because TBD is currently set up to reward XIO holders in XIO/FLASH Flash Protocol and XIO/ETH in Uniswap (XLP program) , which I think are very good and important ways to reward XIO holders and to encourage ecosystem participation (by not discouraging it by not rewarding it like you would by holding XIO in your wallet), I think we must find a way to still accommodate that type of reward structure.
• STAKING? We can’t really introduce Staking as a mechanism for locking XIO/FLASH and XIO/ETH because then this system would directly compete with AQUA protocol of locking up liquidity to earn AQUA. Or would introduce some crazy complexity of: 1) Stake your XIO/ETH into our TBD Smart contract to get TBD tokens. 2) Stake your TBD tokens at AQUA. This could be too confusing for some people.
• CENTRALLY? If staking isn’t an option, then centralized tracking is where my mind goes since that has worked pretty well for the XLP program. Instead of “I will stake my liquidity tokens to earn TBD” it can be that we track and the longer they have not removed liquidity, the higher the multiplier for that account. If it is done centrally, pivoting and reworking rewards structures may be easier to manage in the future, such as when we added FLASH/XIO to TBD earned rewards.
• CONCLUSION: While I like the overall idea, I’m worried this would harm LPs more than it would do good for it’s intended purpose. The problem I’m seeing is: Liquidity Providers are important to have. I don’t yet see a way that doesn’t harm LPs by introducing this time system, due to requiring LP lock up for the sake of more TBD, while also losing out on AQUA as an example. I am going to keep reading other people’s comments and maybe someone else has a different idea or angle on how to approach this.


Increasing the reward over time make total send independently on the possible token swap. Aqua is already a step in the right direction but flash wise people could just come in some days before, get their flash and leave and that is not good for the token, project and long term holders. So either XIO or ZERO i agree with that.
As for the token swap itself i’m still not sold, i kinda like $XIO, but i guess there will be plenty on this in the future

  1. Congrats with the success of $FLASH, this is a very nice concept, and excellent to see that this is not to be confused with $ZERO.

  2. Governance, very important, to choose high potential projects (own or suggested ones), because the “launchpad” falls or is a success with good project being launched. So governance could benefit from some investment into the $ZERO tokens, let’s say 5% or 2% of the total supply in order to have a vote.
    The idea of linking it to time, is something that is used by other launchpads, with a score calculated on how long you hold or stake the $ZERO tokens, and this can be linked by an airdrop/ an allocation of x ZERO tokens/ ETH/ Stablecoins into the new project, or a “farmcubation” possibility. At the same time, you need to have quite some amount of tokens to be able to participate. This can increase the engagement, the hunger to be part of the team, to be thrilled when a new project comes out. If it is exclusive, people will more likely fomo in.

3. @All: Like the video on YouTube/ TG/ Twitter/… (we are only at 26 likes)


For me I think it’s a good idea to let time of holding be the determining factor of the multiplier so that those who intend to hold or stake for long would get the bigger multiuplier, it is the best method in my opinion. The only problem I have is how we would migrate the liquidity on uniswap after transitioning from XIO to ZER0. I don’t know if there is any function or method currently available that can do that, if not then I think it might pose a problem with the change of the entire token and contract. Let me know if anyone has an idea how this can be solved. With that of the burn of the rest of the xio token and minting when needed, I think it’s a smart move as it builds more trust in the community and also provides an extra security layer for the project as the tokens cannot be breached by unscrupulous guys and dumped to destroy the project.

Hello, let me structure my opinion by parts and I hope it can be valuable for the BlockZero team:

I am not sure about the convenience of the time-lock idea.

  1. In a way, having the XIO tokens in the LP locks them + you have the risks of impermanent loss, so I see this a way of commiting to the project, much more than just locking the tokens for some time.
  2. Moreover, in the current way the tokens are providing a value. They provide liquidity for XIO, liquidity for Flash (when you pair them with it) and could provide liquidity for future tokens. If you time-lock them, they are not providing any benefit.
  3. The person who has invested more, should reap more benefits, as he is taking a bigger risk.
    So I think it aligns with the goals.

Maybe a solutions would be to try to change the supply. This could be done by minting new tokens (maybe paralell to transactions done with the studio tokens) that go to a fund wallet.

Or simply, and I think it is better, let it be cap. As I see it is normal that now there are more tokens. This is like what would be in the real world a seed investment. If people come later when BlockZero is really successful and big and want to invest, well, then they have to buy XIO tokens and pay a premium for it. Makes sense, their risk is lower. Is as this XIO would be the “stock” of BlockZero and if BlockZero succeeds, stock goes up.

Finally, I wouldn’t change the name to $ZERO. I think $XIO has already some PR and reputation, and I would not lose it.

Yeah I agree, I personally think we should keep $XIO. Migrating might be a herculean task I think. See we have liquidity on uniswap to migrate and change token contract. I don’t think these come with ease, for me $XIO is cool, at least we changed the name of the project to blockzero. Token name can be $XIO just my opinion.

1 Like

I didn’t think about that huge wallets not in use and hack possibilities.This make a lot of sense. XLP is where i think we need more attention to keep it without any issue.

Thanks for that @Steve!

1 Like