$NOON: A non-transferable TGE

We discussed a foundational decision: Should $NOON governance token be transferable at launch?

In a previous proposal, we outlined the case for launching the $NOON governance token as non-transferable. Since then the community has aligned around this direction with the team - which makes it easy for us to announce that $NOON will be temporarily non-transferable at TGE. We plan to allow transferability of the $NOON token by the end of 2025.

This decision is rooted in our intent to prioritize active participation, long-term alignment, and protocol integrity over short-term speculation or capital-based influence. We understand and appreciate that some community members will disagree with our direction - and we hope that we can demonstrate how this will be beneficial to Noon in the long term.

Below, we recap the reasoning behind this approach, the trade-offs it introduces, and how we plan to phase in transferability over time. We welcome continued input to ensure the path forward remains thoughtful, values-driven, and responsive to community feedback.

Why limit transferability at launch (TGE)?

We will make our governance token ($NOON) non-transferable at launch (TGE). This approach reflects our intention to anchor governance power in active participation, not capital accumulation. By doing so, we aim to:

  • Prevent vote-buying and governance capture: Transferable tokens can be easily accumulated by large capital holders, which may lead to plutocratic dynamics and governance decisions skewed toward short-term or extractive goals. A non-transferable token ensures that only real users get a say in protocol governance. An early period of non-transferability also allows users to test the governance mechanism in a low-risk way, to truly understand the impact of the governance token.
  • Reduce speculative pressure: Non-transferability minimises early market hype or pump-and-dump behaviours, allowing governance to mature in a more mission-aligned and values-driven way.
  • Emphasise identity and contribution: Non-transferable tokens promote a governance system grounded in reputation, accountability, and long-term alignment — not just economic incentives.
  • Encourage organic growth of the community: In the early stages, we want decision-making to come from engaged builders, users, and contributors, to give a greater voice to those committed to the protocol’s development.

But what do we lose?

There are also meaningful trade-offs to consider with non-transferability:

  • Reduced composability: Non-transferable tokens are harder to integrate with DeFi protocols, tooling, and infrastructure that assume ERC-20-like behavior.
  • Limited liquidity and discovery: Markets help surface value signals and can attract contributors or visibility. Restricting transfers may dampen those signals in the short term.
  • Onboarding friction: Potential contributors may be less motivated if there’s no immediate financial upside or if governance power feels “locked.”

Summary: Mitigating the trade-offs of non-transferability

To address the trade-offs of launching with a non-transferable governance token, we’re proposing the following strategy:

1. Participation as reward
Governance power should be earned through active contribution — staking, voting, and engaging in the community — not just capital. This approach aligns decision-making with long-term contributors.

2. Deferred transferability
Transfer restrictions at launch help prevent governance capture and allow us to establish strong norms and safeguards. Transferability will be introduced in a phased, deliberate way once those systems are in place.

3. Incentive structures
We’re offering meaningful ways to participate and earn during the non-transferable phase, including:

  • Boosted staking rewards (especially for long-term lockups)
  • Real yield from protocol revenues (via the Noon Insurance Fund)
  • Vote-escrowed governance mechanics

4. Clear communication
We’re committed to transparency: the non-transferable phase is temporary and values-driven. It’s designed to protect governance integrity while we build toward a more open, liquid model by the end of 2025.

Our way forward

We will adopt a phased roll-out:

  • Tokens are non-transferable at launch (TGE), but users will be able to earn governance rights via a locking mechanism (staking their NOON for sNOON).
  • Transferability is introduced later, after community norms and safeguards (like delegation, quorum rules, or reputation layers) are in place, and Noon is more established in the DeFi ecosystem. We aim for this to happen by the end of 2025 (est.)

At TGE, users will still be able to stake $NOON to access the following rewards (during the non-transferable phase):

  • Daily $sNOON rewards, which vest exponentially over 12 months, with 10% claimable upfront.
  • Receive a 4x token boost to your voting power instantly, similar to the boost usually reserved for 4-year lockers.
  • $sNOON tokens are non-transferable and grant governance rights and a share in the monthly Noon BuyBack rewards.
  • $sNOON can be unstaked anytime, with a 7-day cooldown (temporary for early Noon participants—more details soon).

This hybrid approach could balance the need for early alignment with the eventual goal of open, liquid governance.

How to engage

Keep replies focused on transferability — we’ll open separate threads for staking, delegation, and other mechanics.
When possible, share concrete examples from other protocols (e.g. Optimism, Gitcoin, Arbitrum, etc.), data, or risk models that can help guide the decision.

Above all, respect differing views — we’re stronger when we build collaboratively.

Thanks for helping shape the foundation of our protocol’s governance.

3 Likes

Governance Contribution: Balanced Model for Token Transferability at TGE

First, I appreciate the clarity and rationale presented regarding the proposed non-transferability of the Noon governance token at TGE. The concerns related to vote centralization, speculative behavior, and the protection of long-term protocol alignment are valid and well-reasoned.

However, I would like to suggest a technically moderate and community-aligned alternative that supports those objectives while also preserving enthusiasm among early supporters and encouraging broader engagement from aligned participants.


Suggested Hybrid Model

  1. Maintain 90–95% of Noon tokens as non-transferable, with exclusive use in governance functions such as voting, proposal initiation, and signaling.
  2. Enable 5–10% of the supply to be transferable under controlled frameworks, including:
  • Wrapped formats (e.g., xNOON) that are tradable but stripped of governance power;
  • Time-locked vesting tranches, with progressive release based on protocol milestones or contribution activity;
  • Restricted transfers between verified community members or reputation-gated accounts.
  1. Establish a review checkpoint (e.g., after 6 months) to assess whether the initial constraints remain adequate, based on governance activity and community participation levels.

Justification

This approach aims to avoid weakening the governance framework, while at the same time:

  • Preserving commitment and enthusiasm among early contributors;
  • Avoiding disengagement from highly aligned stakeholders;
  • Allowing a modest degree of flexibility that may be critical for long-term participation and adoption.

Conclusion

Non-transferability at launch is a prudent safeguard. Yet, a hybrid structure that includes a small, purpose-bound transferable allocation may enhance contributor retention and engagement, without compromising the governance integrity of the Noon protocol.

This recommendation seeks to bridge the gap between idealistic token design and real-world community dynamics, fostering an ecosystem that is both resilient and responsive.

1 Like

This is an excellent, well thought out compromise. I’m sure there are many details here that we can get into in more depth, but certainly worth a think. The team will review this, and see how we may be able to fit this in to our list of priorities in Q3 / Q4.

Transparently, with a heavy roadmap in place already, and with transferability on the cards by the end of 2025, this may end up just being an operational lift too far for an interim solution which will not be in place for a long period of time. But it’s certainly worth a discussion - we’ll comment again afterwards.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, really appreciate it!

2 Likes