Final $QUID Public Sale Allocations Are Live | Squid

$QUID Public Sale allocations are now live on Legion and Kraken. Learn how Squid handled an 11.9x oversubscribed sale and finalized allocations.

Bridge

THE SQUIDBLOG

← Back to all posts
July 8, 2026

Now Available: Final allocations for the $QUID Public Sale

Now Available: Final allocations for the $QUID Public Sale

Allocations for the $QUID Public Sale are now live on Legion and Kraken. If you participated, you can see your final amount on the platform you used.

Please note: the two platforms ran separate allocation processes with different criteria. This post explains the Legion allocation methodology, which was designed by Squid based on Legion’s merit-based platform. For more information about Kraken's allocation process, see Kraken's sale page.

The sale closed 11.9x oversubscribed, with a hard cap of $2.25m and a total of $26.7m committed. This means nearly everyone received less than they committed, and some participants unfortunately had to be excluded. We knew from the start that if we were lucky enough to be oversubscribed, the hardest part wouldn't be the raise, it would be deciding how to share the reduction equitably.

Even if we had given every applicant their requested minimum, the sale would still have been far oversubscribed, so we were forced to make some very carefully considered choices. This post sets out exactly how those decisions were made.

The Legion numbers at a glance

The criteria for those who participated in the sale via Legion were as follows: Squid usage, Squid community participation, and their Legion signals. Additional consideration for priority allocation was given to eligible participants who submitted their Squid Priority Allocation Form before the sale closed on July 3 at 1pm UTC.

Here are some key stats of final allocations:

•
77.8% of applicants received an allocation
•
89.9% of funded applicants received at least their minimum requested pledge
•
Long-term Squid users received most of what they requested, and all of them received at least their requested minimum
•
Participants with no prior Squid history received over 40% of the pool, allocated based on the strength of their Legion signals.
•
A bigger request did not mean a bigger share, and neither did a follower count

Allocation principles

During the allocation process, we were focused on aligned supporters: people who would hold, use, and stay with us, whichever door they came through. That meant prioritising long-term Squid users, along with people who had backed previous Legion sales and stayed engaged afterwards (for example, by holding, staking, using the products), while leaving room for newcomers. These were our guiding principles:

•
Long-term, engaged Squid users and community members who committed capital are a strong marker of aligned supporters
•
People with a strong Legion score, especially those with a proven history of backing previous sales, also demonstrate alignment
•
Newcomers also deserve a route in, because a community that only rewards its past has no way to grow
•
The size of a request should never be the thing that decides an outcome

Allocation methodology

Everyone who applied had the same routes to make their case: the Priority Application Form, a cover letter, and their Legion profile. A substantial portion of the pool went to verified Squid users and community members, with the remainder allocated across Legion score holders and new supporters.

Applicants were scored based on a range of signals outlined below, placed into tiers, and each tier received a share of its members' requests.

Allocation breakdown: Squid users vs newcomers

Every applicant who submitted the Priority Allocation Form was scored on their Squid history across three areas: real onchain usage over time, participation in past campaigns, and overall standing in the community. What mattered most:

•
Consistency mattered more than volume spikes. Steady months of genuine usage scored better than a burst of transactions before the sale, and usage through integrators counted too.
•
Consistency was measured in months, not in trade size. The common thread was an onchain pattern of genuinely choosing Squid over time.
•
Campaign participation was weighted: campaigns that took genuine time and presence counted for more than a single quick mint, and campaign participation never outweighed real usage.

Scores placed applicants into four Squid tiers, with higher tiers receiving a larger share of their request. The lightest Squid tier averaged 61% of requested amounts.

Legion signals

Applicants without Squid history were ranked on their Legion Score, which Legion calculates across four pillars:

•
Onchain activity (degen score)
•
Social presence (clout score)
•
Developer contributions (dev score)
•
Value-add behaviour (value-add score)

Applicants without Squid history were ranked on a composite score that blended these pillars, weighted most heavily toward the Value-Add component, which reflects how participants acted after previous allocations: holding, staking, using products and being genuine, long term participants. You can read how the Legion Score works in Legion's guide.

The top of this ranking formed its own tier, treated comparably to our mid Squid tiers. Legion-only participants with strong Value-Add scores received on average 56.1% of their maximum request, and more than 95% received at least their stated minimum.

Human review of cover letters

Every cover letter received at least two rounds of review by members of the Squid team, with multiple reviewers for standout and edge cases. Letters that clearly showed genuine interest or contribution earned stronger consideration.

Legion Republic Quest

Republic quest participants had their rewards committed before the wider allocation process, so those were honoured separately from a fixed budget. Quest participants with Squid or Legion standing could also receive additional allocation from the main pool.

The hard calls

We know from experience that receiving less than your stated minimum is one of the most frustrating outcomes there is. We also heard from participants who wanted to reduce their minimum pledge once the sale became oversubscribed but couldn’t, due to platform rules. So we knew that for at least some of you, receiving less than your requested minimum beat missing out entirely.

When we couldn’t meet someone’s minimum, we had two options: exclude them, or include them below their minimum. We chose inclusion, with guardrails on how far below minimum anyone could land:

•
Successful applicants who requested $500 or less as their minimum received it in full
•
Everyone with a strong record of backing previous Legion sales received their full stated minimum, or the maximum their tier allowed, whichever was lower
•
Those who were funded below their requested minimum never received less than $500

Who didn't receive an allocation

If your allocation ended up below your minimum request, we understand it may be an unwelcome surprise. We made the call to include you at a reduced amount because it felt better than turning you away.

The $QUID Public Sale was significantly oversubscribed, which meant disappointment around allocations was unavoidable. Approximately one in five applicants received no allocation.

For most of these, the pattern was the same: no verifiable Squid history and low Legion scores across the board. A smaller group asked for minimums so far beyond what we could realistically allocate that nothing we could offer would have come close. We decided a clear no was more respectful than a tiny yes.

If you were in this group, the lack of allocation is not a judgment of you as a person. At nearly 12x oversubscription the line had to fall somewhere, and it fell at something objective: verifiable history.

Tips for future Public Sale participants

After reviewing every application, some patterns were hard to miss. For anyone joining future sales on Legion, here is a consolidated list of takeaways we learned when determining final allocations:

•
Authentic, regular use of the product beats manufactured activity
•
Holding, staking, and actually using what you're allocated in previous sales is the strongest signal on the Legion side: the Value-Add pillar of your Legion Score tracks behaviour after allocations, and it was something we looked carefully at
•
Keep cover letters short and human; the best ones we funded were rarely longer than a paragraph
•
Set your range thoughtfully. Very large spreads between minimum and maximum made genuine intent harder to read

What happens next

•
Refunds of uncommitted funds are processed by each platform per their policies.
•
Tokens are distributed at TGE - target window Q3, exact date announced through official channels as soon as it's confirmed.
•
Nothing to claim before then. We will never DM you first. If something looks like a $QUID claim link right now, it's a scam.

Questions about your allocation?

Please visit support.squidrouter.com and open a ticket, we'll be glad to take a look. We can't change final allocations, but we can explain how the process worked and correct anything that's genuinely gone wrong.

Thank you for backing Squid. The Public Sale was just the start; the interesting part comes next.

Please Note

This crypto-asset marketing communication has not been reviewed or approved by any competent authority in any Member State of the European Union. The offeror of the crypto-asset is solely responsible for the content of this crypto-asset marketing communication.

A crypto-asset whitepaper for $QUID has been published. The offeror and person seeking admission to trading is Squid (BVI) Ltd. For more information, visit: https://www.squidrouter.com/. Tel: +44 7347334617. Email: [email protected].

This blog is provided for educational and informational purposes only. This is not investment advice or a recommendation or solicitation for on-chain participation in any mentioned chains, tokens, or assets. Please do your own research before swapping any on-chain assets.