Proposal: Add FLASH to Index Fund

I propose that we add a percentage of the FLASH that goes to the treasury to the index fund in order to a) boost the index fund which in turn supports xio and b) ensure Blockzero is incentivised to continue supporting flash.

Currently with each stake, an additional 20% of the reward amount goes to the treasury. I propose a portion of this goes to the index fund.

Please discuss the pros and cons and what percentage this should be.


Hi Dave

We have been discussing this for the last week on the post @Umar made about $AQUA
Many good suggestions and percentages were given.

How different will this be for $FLASH?
Should we decide on a % in the Index fund for each token individually?


Definitely agree that a percentage of FLASH should go into the index. As for the exact percentage, how about: 20% of the additional amount. So if the additional amount is currently 20%, then 4% goes to the index, and 16% goes to the treasury. If the additional amount changes to 10% then 2% would go to the index and 8% to the treasury. That seems about right to me.

The treasury fund is important for FLASH as 100% of FLASH was distributed at launch, with the treasury starting at 0 FLASH. As such, the index proportion should be set too high for FLASH.


Aaaaa, thank you Samuel you answered my question.
It is a bit different for $FLASH because 100% was distrinuted.

I quite like this idea personally. The idea of the index fund in my mind is to provide collateral for the XIO token based on the future success of our projects.

Yes, I think we should put some FLASH into the Index fund. I just wonder how this would be possible since the audit is already underway and modifying the FPY match to send some FLASH to the index fund would not be possible now.

A possible option here is to mint a larger amount of tokens initially when FLASH v2 launches and send these to the index fund. The total supply of FLASH V1 currently around 19 million - we could mint an additional 10-30% and send these to the fund - so somewhere between 1.9 million and 5.7 million.

An important consideration here is although these numbers may seem high, the total supply will continue to increase over time (I believe) and since there is no FPY match, it might be a good idea to increase the initial deposit into the fund.


@umarsa could the flash be added manually by the treasury? Ie. Treasury receives 100k flash in march, so it sends 10k to the index. Same again next month? Otherwise the mint option works

1 Like

I understand the reasoning but we should be a bit careful with how this could be interpreted by investors.

The $FLASH glitch did do damage to the way some people (not loyal citizens) will look at the project. If you now announce that you are going to use this migration to also increase the supply it could add to the negative narrative.

Yes I understand why we want $FLASH in the Index but I am afraid many will see it as diluting their investment.


Yes it could be but something to consider is that the FLASH which goes to the foundation is supposed to be used for helping the FLASH protocol - for example for marketing campaign or liquidity mining programmes. If we were to use this for the Index fund, it would be helping XIO and not FLASH. It’s possible that we could put this to a vote and see how the community feels.

Yes, I can see this narrative too.

What do you suggest here and are you for or against adding FLASH into the index fund?

1 Like

This makes sense. Agree with you

1 Like

I 100% agree with you. It would look like the incident was taken advantage of.

1 Like

@samuelnathanrichards summed it up nicely, and I believe his percentage suggestion is good. Amount should go into XIO fund, so as to keep $FLASH relevant and important to Blockzero. But it should be less than the treasury.

1 Like

I think this is an option worth considering.

$FLASH helping $XIO and vice versa is only natural, they both belong within the same community (since one is made thanks to the other). Their future being tied seems obvious.

The $FLASH glitch having a negative impact on $XIO is unfortunate but in the long run (for future projects) being tied is helpful since it means the community has even more reasons to be proactive with either project, ensuring it’s succes. It may incentivize people to do bug bounties etc. even more.

1 Like


i really don’t know about what percentage is the best. maybe 50% of the 20%?

for aqua i was stating that 30% of the coins should go to our index to maintain the control of the tokens we create. in this case is different because all token were given to XIO’s holders…

1 Like

It might be nice but @umarsa’s comment about not changing the FLASH contract now is a critical one. I also like @DaveGfK’s idea of the treasury manually putting FLASH into the index, but as @umarsa pointed out, that would likely need some sort of governance vote, of which I’d be happy to see.


What if foundation flashstake half of their Flash to XIO and them exchange the XIO to flash periodically when they don’t need the amount immediately to pay for marketing campaign or liquidity mining programmes. until we reach a cap of 10% of actual circulation supply of flash at Index?


:dizzy: mmmmm , something I didn’t even think of ??

1 Like

I think I side with Dave on this. The parent token here is xio so if an amount of $flash in the treasury is channeled into the index fund collateralizing the value of the xio token then it means the parent token has a stronger backing in some way. This brings a loop back advantage to flash since things pertaining to development, marketing etc are all done by the parent company blockzero which sponsors this with the parent token xio. For me I would suggest we allocate 10% of the treasury share into the index fund.

1 Like

For I’m just being mindful of how the community would accept this initial mint into the index fund. You know how crypto communities can be tough to convince sometimes. Isn’t there a way to code it into the contract to channel a percentage of the treasury funds into the index? I’m not a developer but I guess this could be done or?

My initial reaction is YES and to mint an additional 20% upfront that goes to the index fund. (This is separate from the FPY matching that goes to the Foundation)

Also worth noting, no one else has mentioned yet, is how this would affect the FPY. Because the FPY% is based on total supply / total staked, the amount that goes to the index fund would NOT be staked, therefore this would effectively permanently increase the FPY vs if this proposal did not pass.

  • Example: if this proposal passes and it creates an extra let’s say 3mil FLASH that goes to index fund and if at some point in time there is 20mil total supply and 10mil is staked:
  • With 20% (+3mil) proposal: 10 mil staked vs 23 mil supply = roughly 28% FPY
  • No extra 20%, proposal doesn’t pass: 10mil staked vs 20 mil supply = roughly 25% FPY

That being said, this means anyone who thinks this hurts or dilutes them as a FLASH holder would not be taking into consideration how this would increase their FPY when they stake.


I think this is a great idea, and for a similar reason that I think its a good idea to do for AQUA. Tying the success of the flash protocol (as measured by amount staked) to blockzero directly will help tie the projects together in the long term. Because this wasn’t the original intent, I would argue for a smaller amount added (maybe 5% total, so 15% to foundation and 5% to blockzero index)