Got it, thanks!

You just need to claim. Then they are yours. If you don’t claim in 90 days of their availability then they go back to the rewards pool. If you want to compound interest the rewards then you need to wrap after claiming to add those extra WFLR into the snapshots that happen across the month to calculate the next months drop. You’ll have more wrapped flare so you’ll get more in the next drop. Finally, if you want to participate in the FTSO rewards system (it’s a seperate calculation from the airdrop one) then you will want to have a delegation set up to one or two FTSO’s. Delegation need only happen once. You set up the delegations then they stay in effect till changed. Every time you wrap flare they will be allocated as voting power to your delegation choice of FTSO. To recap: To get full benefit possible, chose one or up to two FTSO providers that you delegate your vote power to every three days claim the FTSO rewards and wrap the FLR you receive once a month claim the airdrop and wrap those received FLR Hope that helps.

Apologies I have been out of the loop (I have not been looking at crypto at all these days). Indulge me...! Putting aside the value of the airdrop that has changed and which seems controversial... Instead of gradually and passively getting some FLR directly in our wallets solely based on the XRP snapshot from 2020, we need to actively wrap FLR into WFLR, delegate them to a FTSO, then claim the additional FLR airdrop every month. If we don't, we get nothing extra. Did I get this right? Is there anything else we need to do to get the full rewards?

Nice try with the straw man. Lol. No one ever claimed the SEC has jurisdiction outside the US. The claim was that an SEC finding that Flare is a security would have a negative effect on the market. Which seems pretty apparent. You were trying to ridiculously claim that it wouldn't affect it because -blah blah blah- jurisdiction. You were falsely equating legal jurisdiction with a legal decision's fallout. An equation that no one ever made except for you. Now, you apparently want to have it both ways. According to you, the SEC and the US gov are too weak to even affect an international market, but some unnamed nation's court would have no issue having a global reach. So, which is it? Can powerful nations bully other nations into compliance or can't they? Perhaps jurisdiction isn't the magical safety vest that you think it is.

False, I said the SEC has no jurisdiction outside the US.

Legally, you say? Exactly what jurisdiction's laws would apply. UAE? You just assured me in another post that national laws do not have any bearing on markets or protocols beyond borders. So I take it you are referring to civil proceedings in Dubai? Are you familiar with UAE civil code?

I should add that I disagree with your assessment. Circumstances changed, time passed, and a better plan (in their opinion) became an option. There was no contract with us and it was all free and a gift (please don’t cite ‘we provided the hype and community’…. that’s really weak sauce). The vote was a bit farcical because of the weight of the founder’s holdings but that is the case in every coin I’m aware of. Maybe at some far future point truly decentralised finance will be a thing, but it’s nowhere that I can see thus far. Anyway. You and I differ on the ethical situation here and I don’t think either can convince the other so I’m happy to move on.

Yes you are correct and I was completely wrong with my pathetic mafs. So at this stage it looks like a wash and only time will tell if it gains or loses for us all. One thing that’s promising is there hasn’t been a big slump after the drop as some expected but that could be due to macro conditions. Personally I think it has more potential than the original plan because of the incentive to wrap, but as we’ve just seen, my calculations and thoughts are often wrong.

Ah thanks, I was an idiot. I’m editor in chief of “Mafs for Morons”. Yeah, instead of a massive gain as I supposed it is nearly a wash. And no doubt the Crypto gods will gradually lower the price to make it ever worse.

What Hugo & Flare Network did to XRP community is ethically (and maybe even legally) reprehensible. So far the 1st month is slightly better than the original plan, but that is due to many exchanges not sending FLR to their users. It's about 20% but calculated compared to the initial 15% drop (or to any amount that you may have wrapped). The original plan would be an initial drop of 15% and then about 3% monthly. But that 3% compared to the 100% amount of the snapshot. There is NO guarantee that it will be always around 20% of the wrapped FLR. According to my calculations this is slightly better than the original plan. But by DROP #10 it could be slightly worst and by DROP #36 maybe it will end up being worst than the original plan. There is really not way to know for sure.

No, not quite right. Before FIP01 XRP holders would have got about 2.36% per month (the remaining 85% divided by 36) of their total due distribution, which was just over 1x their XRP holding on the snapshot date, Dec 2020. Now they have received this month about 20% of the 15% FLR that was dropped in the TDE (plus whatever delegation rewards they have accrued). So, it's about 3% of the final total they would have got, as opposed to 2.36%. That looks better, but the 20% per month will almost certainly drop over time as more people join in and the distribution pool gets diluted. Take a look at FIP.01 Airdrop Simulator

Even assuming that drops in volume over time…. weren’t you sure you’d been robbed by the new proposal? And yet this is about seven times more than you would have gotten (for this one at least). Do you think it might work out better for you after all? Or do you still feel cheated?

This page might be interesting to watch over time. I’m not sure how many will be unclaimed after period but might be an interesting graph over time. https://flare-explorer.flare.network/address/0x9c7A4C83842B29bB4A082b0E689CB9474BD938d0/coin-balances#address-tabs

Few people active on the FLR/SGB club of xrpchat. But just for the record, today was the first FLR drop of the 36 monthly drops from the 85% remaining FLR that was once promised from the (now infamous) XRP snapshot. The 1/36 drop amounted to about 20% of an average users holding. Since there is a lot of FLR trapped in sites like Celsius and some exchanges it is highly probable that the next few months will have similar results, so some people may reconsider trying to participate. Source: https://flare.network/flaredrop-guide/

Yup, it wont. Crypto as time goes by is more decoupled from a falling US hegemony on money. The cat is out the bag.

FWIW, I am a US citizen but I do not currently live in the US. Which means that every single day I have to deal with bullshit caused by US regulators, that according to you, can't exist because I'm outside the US. You ever hear of FATCA? Try being a USC and opening a bank account in a different country. The banks are forced to act as enforcement agents for the IRS and FINCEN. Do you think these banks enjoy doing that? No, they are coerced into it by the threat of being cut-off from the global reserve currency. If the US government's reach ended at the borders this wouldn't be the case. And don't mistakenly believe it is just USCs who are affected. I have met people from all over the world who have to jump through regulatory hoops simply to appease some US bureaucrat. But sure, let's just pretend Flare will be magically immune to the SEC's shenanigans since they are based outside the US.

LOL Keep telling yourself that. You think an SEC ruling regarding the status of Flare as a security would not affect the international market?

Let me guess, you are american, right? Well, the SEC has no reach outside the US, it doesn't matter that you think otherwise. Hugo is in Dubai and FLR network can exist without any US citizen as user. By the way, Ripple has plans to exit the US if they lose against the SEC.

Yes. Of course. But that is irrelevant. If you think the reach of the SEC, when it comes to killing a market, is just the US, then I have a bridge to sell you. Moral or not, they claim global jurisdiction. They can prevent all US based exchanges from touching it. They can also make it illegal for US citizens to deal in it. Do you think this wont affect the market? It would likely effectively kill the project.

We are nearing the first monthly FLR drop after the (manipulated) voting. A discord member posted some interesting info on accounts related to Flare team that have to opt out from this airdrop:

Flare Network is NOT a US entity. The SEC (no matter what they think) jurisdiction is limited to the US.

Another thought, if one looks at the case with Ether, it seems that the SEC's stance is that if a decentralized network relies on mining of a token it means that it is NOT a security but that the very same network using staking to confirm means the token IS a security. What is functionally different about these two techniques with regard to Howey? The situation with Ether really is the achille's heal of the SEC argument. It undercuts their entire stance. On the one hand, they want to say security status is determined by the method of initial distribution (airdrop, ICO). This is the case against Ripple. But by being on the record as having given Ether a pass (which had an ICO), they also have demonstrated that it is not the distribution method that solely determines security status. That its status can "change" with further decentralization. However, the SEC's recent 180 on Ether even further weakens their argument. They are now trying to say that security status is determined by how the network is confirmed as well. But this is the height of absurdity. What is fundamentally different with regards to howey between staking and mining? My guess is that the SEC wishes it had declared Ether a security right from the beginning. They are now trying to do an end run around the law to patch their "mistake" by creating some new baseless distinction between staking and mining so they can bring ether back under their wing. To be honest, I'm surprised they haven't with bitcoin as well. Just make up another absurd condition to define what makes something a security and bob's your uncle.

Is Flare a security in the eyes of the SEC? Obviously, considering the current legal ambiguity surrounding all crypto, this question is not easy to answer. However, I think that given the information we know, and the current on-the-record stances of the SEC, it is worth speculating on. Because the SEC has stated that essentially all airdrops are securities, it seems highly likely that they would consider Flare's airdrop of the 15% to XRP holders to be an illegal "sale" of securities. However, I think the following 85% is not so clear. The IRS is treating it as wages. Does this mean that the SEC would see it simply as one being paid in "securities"? If this is the case, then it seems the SEC stance is that the security status of all tokens is determined by the initial method of distribution of the very first token. An "original sin" of sorts, determining the status of all other tokens that follow. If the first 15% of a token were given away by its creator, and then the other 85% gained through mining, the SEC would consider it all a security? What if the 15% were 10% or 1%? What if it were one single token given away in an "airdrop" and the rest required to be mined? All securities? So why is BTC not a security? Is it simply because they can't find the person/people who made it? If Satoshi were positively identified, would it magically turn BTC into a security? I suppose one could argue that Satoshi is not doing any work to increase the value of the token and so their is no "common enterprise". If this is the case, could the Flare foundation simply disband? Is it even needed? Can't the whole FTSO reward process and state connector be automated? Furthermore, with their recent shift with regards to Ether, it seem that the SEC may be demonstrating that they see any rewards gained from "staking" and "delegating" as securities, even if the token itself is not a security. They have been clear that tokens gained from mining, and which have no central controlling authority (eg BTC) are not tokens. But if one were to stake them, then any proceeds from the staking somehow are securities. Either that, or any staking activity itself "taints" all the tokens. This creates a bizarre and contradictory situation where fungible tokens have different legal status according to the SEC, or a single person choosing to create a staking rewards program on a distributed blockchain could render the entire token a security. What say you?

Bingo. And that becomes the basis for capital gains or losses when selling.

For US based recipients, how are you all treating the new monthly airdrops under FP.01 for tax purposes? Should it be claimed as income, based upon the market value at the time of receipt? This seems like complete shite. Is there a better tax posture available? Ideas?