How much HNY do the devs have in total? It's at least 30%

Hello fellow bees,

I found it somewhat strange that the liquidity went from 2 million to 6 million but at the same time the price only went up by 40% ?
When i checked out the addresses that people used to vote i saw that there are multiple addresses that hold different kind of HNY tokens, those are other ERC-20 tokens before they went with the HNY we know now.
Those addresses have a total of 7500 HNY so those few addresses have 1/3 of the HNY supply.
Is there a place where we can see the holdings of the lead devs to have an accurate number on this because i find it a little alarming that a few people hold almost 1/3 of the supply of HNY.

Some addresses only hold the real honey ERC20 token: ERC-20 0x71850b7e9ee3f13ab46d67167341e4bdc905eef9

So you could think they might be just whales that bought alot of honey early on, but if you dig a little deeper and go to Token Transfers you can see that this person received 2500 HNY from this address

And the address where it came from has so many different HNY ERC-20 tokens from their test deployment

discord test deployment

I just want some transparancy about the true holdings of the devs that got those “premined” tokens because 7500 HNY is only what i randomly found by checking out the whales that voted on the proposals.

The crazy thing is that we don’t know how much the devs have in total, all we know is that its at least 1/3, and this isn’t even going to be used for development like other projects do, it’s their personal HNY.
Here the common pool is used to expand the project and the common pool gets filled with 60% inflation for now.

Hope we can get some information about all the addresses and the true holding % of the devs and someone can help and clear this up because right now it doesn’t look so good to me.

Here are the addresses i’m talking about:


Hi Linca,

As I said in #general where you posted this forum post, there are some facts to consider:

  1. The founders hold a lot of Honey because Honey was distributed as a “kudos” for a good job and used as our voting token when we were on mainnet. This balance was transferred to xDai when we migrated
  2. The issuance was purposefully set high to dilute us over time
  3. We never knew that all of you would come here so fast, we never marketed anything and didn’t consider ourselves ready for prime time yet, which is why it also represents such a high % of the total Honey supply

For point 1, you can see the nominations (as we called them) on our now defunct Keybase organization. We would use information from this channel to create Dot Votes to distribute some set amount of Honey every so often. The Honey was primarily used as voting power/street cred and did not have any real tangible value at the time. We migrated to xDai and opted to migrate the balances as well - which is also why most of the accounts have multiple different versions of Honey, as those were the result of multiple test migrations and test deployments of Honey Pot.

For point 2, the issuance rate is currently super high (60%) which will dilute us over time. None of us are interested in being huge whales and we acknowledge that this might look bad, but it isn’t as bad as it seems. None of us are interested in crushing the work we have all done over the past 2 years for short-term profits and long-term damaged reputation.

For point 3, it is important to keep in mind that Honeyswap and 1hive as a whole was never really advertised. Everyone just showed up one day because someone found us! We did not consider ourselves super prime time ready (as supported by the fact that Honeyswap Info didn’t exist until a few days before people arrived) so we didn’t announce anything.

I don’t have the exact numbers on the amount of Honey Seed holds as I do not know everyone’s addresses, but I will try to figure it out if it is important to you. I want to make it absolutely clear that we did not intentionally try to hide the fact that we represent a large share of the token supply.

Edit: I should also mention that it is not only the founders’ balances that were migrated, it is also a bunch of one-off contributors that were given Honey in the older days of the project, and the amounts they were given did not represent a lot of Honey at the time.

I hope this clears up any concerns/questions you might have had regarding this.


Now I also understand why you guys wanted to increase the supply instead of keeping the supply low or capped and it shows you have the best intentions for the project instead of capping the supply and letting HNY go to 10,000$ and enjoy major profits.

And yes whenever you have some time to look it up I would like to know an estimate of HNY that the founders have compared to total supply.

Thank you for the detailed reply.


Thanks for the explanation, but OP raises a really important point that does directly impact the future of issuance. If the goal of issuance was to dilute you and other dev holdings over time, didn’t you take into consideration the fact by allowing such dilution you’re going to marginally impact the whales while really negatively impacting holders?

Anyway just my 2 cents. I came up with most of these ideas on the spot so feel free to critique/give feedback. Thanks for reading!

1 Like

Not a developer myself for honeyswap but they have every right to the same rewards as the rest of us because if it weren’t for them there would be no honeyswap and we wouldn’t even be having this convo


OP does raise a good point and I do think that transparency is warranted, tastefully!


HNY has a dynamic supply.
It does not have a fixed supply.

It isn’t anybody’s business to change how HNY was distributed before they themselves came onto the project.

In my opinion it is immoral to go back in time and tax the developers.


These people built a project that is helping everyone.

And there is still zero guarantee with the value of the token.

I find the idea of back-taxing developers shocking.


This has been discussed on discord and cleared up by Ikgtn who will post a summary about it here.
But i’ll explain what was said in short until he posts.

So 1hive/honey was created on mainnet and everyone who worked on the project got HNY as a reward, so there wasn’t a crowdsale or ico. Then they moved to xdai and they took those 25 000 HNY from mainnet with them to xdai, so the 25 000 HNY was distributed between everyone who worked on the project and then Ikgtn mainly started providing liquidity and people started buying HNY

He confirmed it’s quite possible that 80% of the supply is still in the hands of people who created it and 20% is in the hands of people who bought it, that is why Ikgtn thinks its crucial to have inflation to distribute HNY to more people because if there are 100 000 or 200 000 HNY for example the original creaters % of HNY compared to the total supply would automatically go down, and i fully agree with that.

This is a link provided by omahs where you can see the biggest addresses:

Hope this clears it up, cheers.


i dont quite get why this should be a problem

the developers which know the whole project the best and invested their time into it while HNY had zero value are for sure the most capable people to decide where the road might lead us.
Also the constant contributors to the project have more HNY but they really deserve to have a bigger voice then the normal folks.

Frankly said … HNY is a governance token , one out of a trillion projects out there, i am sure none of the developers would have dreamed in his wildest dreams that HNY would take off as it did.

Get me right on this one, sure i would like to have more HNY myself.
… but the real question is - would i value the governance token as much if the price of HNY would be 0.00001548 USD.

Would my voting right really be in the best interest of the the project if i look at HNY only with $$ signs in the eyes?

imho i am fine the way it is,


I agree it’s not a problem and it also explains why they want to increase the supply of HNY to distribute it amongst the community which is a good thing.

It’s just a healthy conversation to have since there is no white paper and i’m glad it’s all been explained.

As Ikgntn said in his own words:


I think this is a sensitive issue. To be fair, i don’t think it is right to discriminate against the early developers or deny them the same rights as every other community member because of the amount of HNY they hold. It’s not as if they got a crystal ball to know that HNY would be worth what it is today and then intentionally proceeded to amass all that HNY for themselves.

They believed in the project and kept working and building it till it got to where it is today, just like many community members that joined recently believe and are presently working to build 1Hive earning HNY today in the process. Tomorrow if 1HNY = $500,000 and another fresh set of people join, i don’t think it would be fair to start dishing out conditions to those earlier participants because they arrived earlier, amassed a significant amount and hodled. i understand that the qty of HNY we are talking about here is really…… really huge and that it gives the people that own it immense power, but at the time HNY was worth close to nothing, that is the reason why i always preach that any HNY we distribute within the 1Hive ecosystem should be a factor of what percentage of the Honeypot it translates to rather than what it is worth in fiat.

I believe that as the hive continues to grow and more and more people come onboard, this same issue will keep rearing its ugly head and i can only pray it does not become an excuse for a powerful FUD capable of stunting the growth of the project.
I think the owners of these addresses who still believe in and want the best for 1Hive should come together and decide on what to do about this. One idea is locking up a significant qty in escrow and have it slowly released back to them over time. I am aware it might be taking it too far as someone with huge resources can just as easily appear from nowhere and by up all the HNY since its mcap isn’t all that huge anyway, but at least it’ll assuage people like @pressure and @linca and demonstrate to all that indeed they believe in the future and sucess of 1Hive and have no ulterior motive. This of course strictly voluntary and it all depends on what the community decides regarding the HNY issuance policy.


A brief history of honey

This topic came up on the Discord this morning and I shared some history and background information on the honey distribution. But it was asked that I share a summary here as well.

1Hive has been experimenting with DAOs for quite a while, the first iteration was on Rinkeby. You can see the Aragon DAO here. At the time we were using a membership model with a contributor token (Honey), we didn’t have any capital, so we issued Honey and distributed it to people who contributed to the projects we were working on. It didn’t really have any financial value at the time, but it carried social value within the community. We knew the model wasn’t perfect, we just wanted to dogfood daos and see if we could figure out how to make this new form of community organization work. We tried a lot of different processes, The mechanism that worked best for us was a periodic “nominations” + dot voting. We set a budget and distributed honey on a regular bases using Honey weighted dot-voting, if someone did something cool in the community someone would nominate them, and they would be added to the vote. Existing honey holders could distribute their voting weight across all nominees, and then each nominee would get a proportion of the budgeted honey based on these votes.

Once we found this process we realized that it just felt good, people contributed organically and then had those contributions be recognized and rewarded by others without having to pre-negotiate as fun and engaging, rather than feeling like work. People could be creative and take initiative, determining for themselves how they wanted to contribute and what would provide the most leverage.

Additionally, because we had set a budget for the allocation and then simply weighted it by token holding there was minimal argument surface about the relative value of various contributions. In some weeks lots of awesome stuff happened and each contribution received less honey, and some weeks there was a standout contribution that that got a large portion of that weeks honey.

Eventually we decided to move our DAO from rinkeby to Besides feeling more real, some of the consistent contributors had started to work on grants, with the introduction of real money we had new challenges around treasury management and processes and legal requirements. We had treated the rinkeby organization as a test org, but had set the expectation early on that we intended honey balances to be carried over to whatever iteration and experiment happened next so long as it made sense to do so.

After further iteration there seemed to be a pretty natural split, where the 1hive community dao continued to function primarily with Honey using the nominations and allocation process. But we now had grants with specific deliverables and legal expectations and so we needed to have tighter processes. We found that these processes didn’t scale in the same way, we needed to be able commit to deliverables and take on liability to engage with clients or grant providers, and we couldn’t do that well if resources were flowing in a more ad-hoc nature. We also found that we couldn’t onboard people fluidly, because we needed to manage our resources much like a traditional company would. Essentially we started to see the emergence of what the 1hive model looks like today, a larger community with smaller groups that are more tightly coordinated in the periphery.

As gas costs increased on mainnet it became apparent that our existing processes for distribution of honey to community members was not tenable. At one point it cost over 100 dollars just to create the dot vote, and was similarly expensive for each person voting. We had also depended on that initial seed group to mint and set up the dot votes, and this felt like a bug and not a desirable feature, we had been working on more sophisticated mechanisms to avoid that were just getting to the MVP stage, and so we decided to take the relatively large step of iterating on the honey issuance and distribution process and at the same time migrate to xDai. You can read more about that in the annoucement post about the migration.

In order to migrate to xdai we had to setup and deploy all of the Aragon dao infrastructure, we also had been using uniswap to provide liquidity to honey on Ethereum, and so we also deployed uniswap v1 during the migration. At the point of the migration there were only around ~45 honey holders. It was a much smaller community. After the migration and announcement we saw a steady increase as we participated in hackathons like dao hack month (where we created the faucet), and dao rush week, the conviction pilot with aragon and block science, and of course honeyswap. After the omnibridge and honeyswap launched, a random person I had never talked to wrote a guide on how to bridge dai and buy honey on honeyswap, and started shilling the article. After that we had parabolic growth, as more people found out they created more content and videos, shared it with their friends, and we had a huge influx of people and capital into the community.

This influx was extremely rapid, we went from somewhere like 200 accounts, to currently over 8000 holding honey, and we went from Honey being around 50 dollars to where it is currently ~1100 dollars. The initial spike was on relatively low liquidity, but since then liquidity has been growing consistently while price has still been fairly healthy. Without doing deep analysis, this likely means that some of the existing community members are selling, and they are also providing liquidity, making it easier for others to get in and out of positions, rebalance their portfolios, without impacting price significantly.

Beyond simply an influx of capital, we have seen an influx of people, in my opinion the most valuable asset a DAO has its its community and its culture. A rapid influx of people is challenging for a community, because it takes time for values, social norms, and culture to be propagated to new community members. Community health and culture is of paramount importance, it’s more important than short term price movements, and more important than honeyswap, because community and culture are the only moat that matters for decentralized networks. Liquidity flows to where things are most profitable, open source software can be easily forked and redeployed, it’s the community values, norms, social structures and history that make things like Ethereum and Bitcoin valuable, not the underlying technology codebase.

I say all this to provide context, because I think that what we are doing here is unique. It’s not surprising that when new people come in and learn about 1hive they try and match it to existing patterns, but we don’t really fit that mold. We didn’t do a ICO, we didn’t do a pre-mine, we haven’t ever raised funds, there isn’t a core team, and we are all individuals that have aligned around common values and shared interest. We have been a community project since day one, it just happens to be that we have experienced parabolic growth both in terms of people and capital in recent weeks, and people who have been involved in the community before that spike generally have a much greater amount of Honey compared to people who have recently joined the community. As we continue to grow and the 8k honey holders look small when we hit 100k, the people joining now will also have a distinct advantage over those that come later, and if there is a dip in price or interest in the project, the ones with strong hands that stick around and keep contributing will be the ones that end up being rewarded most in the next cycle. Markets ebb and flow, and I’m never going to tell anyone in the community when they should buy or sell, but we are building a resilient community that goes way beyond just a dex on xdai, or any specific initiative.

With all that said, I do think the current distribution is too concentrated! However, echoing the sentiment shared by others in this thread, I feel strongly against any suggestion or proposal to directly target specific individuals because they have too much honey… Instead we should look for, adopt, and maintain policies which help to push the distribution towards one that is more broadly distributed through positive incentives.

We are still in a community bootstrapping and growth phase, and we have an issuance policy that reflects that. Issuance is a tool that forces circulation, it impacts all holders proportionally, but in this case has a much more pronounced relative impact on original community members, because they are being diluted, and as they are honey is being recirculated to a much wider set of contributors, both those contributing capital (farms), as well as contributing value in other ways (pollen, faucet, and swarm proposals).

We also have farms now, and incentivizing liquidity for the honey against other liquid pairs (like dai and weth) encourages and enables larger holders to sell honey and have it recirculate without causing the price to crash (which is disruptive and not really fun for anyone).

One suggestion was to have people with a lot of honey voluntarilly lock up the honey in a vesting contract, removing the ability for them to vote and creating long term alignment (while also assuaging fears that they might dump and destabilize the market at any point). I think this is interesting, and not opposed to it so long as it is not done through governance but instead done voluntarily, and perhaps there are interesting ways we could incentivize this behavior either directly with honey, or more creatively (perhaps issue an NFT related to locking up tokens).

Whatever ends up being proposed (if anything), I think its important that we don’t create the culture or future expectation that if you contribute and play by the rules and accumulate honey, that at some point in the future some mob of people will decide that you don’t deserve it and coordinate to punish you for it. If we create that sort of culture or set that sort of precedent, there will be no reason to value Honey now or in the future.

This ended up being a bit longer than I expected, and I haven’t really proofread or edited it, so hopefully it adds to the discussion and gives some context about the history and of honey and 1hive, and my perspective on the issue of concentration in the current honey distribution.


I agree with everything you said especially that early contributors/adopters shouldn’t get punished and that the concentrated distribution should be fixed in a positive way instead.

Great read and thanks for taking the time to write us a little history lesson about 1hive/honey :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

As Luke also mentioned in his post, I actually think this is a pretty interesting approach. I wouldn’t be totally opposed to doing something like this myself.


Thanks for sharing the story. It is nice to know all the path 1hive has gone through.


New to the space. Lovin the growth story!

1 Like

Incredible story, I really enjoyed reading it. Thanks for sharing. :notebook:

1 Like

Good response. One great thing about this forum is that it serves as a kind of record keeper. In the future anyone with time to spare can read through and see for themselves how things transpired that led to whatever the project becomes at the time. I say this because of what you said regarding laying the foundation for the culture of a later community subjecting the earlier ones to unfair subjugation. While transparency is a powerful tool against such degeneracy, i still believe we have to open a discussion about this to forestall a future reoccurrence because going by our present reward structure, it is likely it might happen again sometime in the future because i believe 1Hive is just getting started.


My post where I suggested taxation or other retroactive actions on the early adopters was written in haste and I never meant for it to seem like I was strongly proposing any of those ideas. However, I do see how those ideas could proliferate and cause issue long-term if others start to agree and then turn against the developers. Therefore, I’m going to edit my initial comments to remove some of the more charged ideas, without dampening the discussion so future readers don’t have missing pieces.

Similar to my outlook on token issuance, I am going to yield to the developers to come up with effective ways to distribute the tokens to promote relative dilution of the developers’ wallets while issuing HNY and allowing the ecosystem to thrive. I tend to come in hot with ideas, but then I learn more about the topic being discussed I tend to yield. Not the best habit, but that’s me.

After reading @lkngtn’s wonderful writeup, I am more excited about Honeyswap than ever, and I really am starting to realize that as newcomers (like myself a few weeks ago) come here they will have their own beliefs and ideas from prior projects, but they may not be applicable. They, like myself, will have to adapt to the community’s demeanor and ideologies and I think that this was a big lesson for me.

I am going to take a step back and try to contribute to the proposals and community in a different way, moreso by facilitating the ongoing ideas rather than bringing in disruptive ideas that can jeopardize the current culture we have here.

Thanks everyone for being not only polite and informative, but hard-working and conscientious. This community is seriously one-of-a-kind and I’m really happy to be a part of it. Thank you all for being patient with me as I learn how to contribute to the project. I never had any ill-intent and I hope everyone knows that!


Appreciate the sentiment, but I love disruptive ideas and I think you have brought an interesting perspective and I’ve enjoyed engaging with you on those… so don’t hesitate… if having an opinion as a newcomer were a damaging thing… we would have far bigger issues. :smiley: