Executive Summary
Mantle has evolved from an Ethereum Layer-2 ecosystem into a broader onchain financial infrastructure ecosystem, with activity spanning real-world assets (RWA), decentralized finance (DeFi), stablecoins, institutional products, liquidity infrastructure, and related applications.
According to Mantle’s official Treasury data, as of September 14, 2026, the Mantle Treasury manages approximately $2.4 billion in assets, of which approximately $1.75 billion is held in MNT.
This raises an important long-term governance question:
> **If Mantle is able to generate sustainable economic revenue, how should a portion of that economic value accrue to MNT holders?**
At present, Mantle has not established a clear, systematic, and transparent framework that automatically connects eligible ecosystem revenue to MNT value capture.
This proposal therefore recommends that Mantle DAO begin a formal discussion around a:
> **Revenue-Based MNT Buyback Framework**
The purpose of this framework is not to support the token price in the short term or manipulate the market.
Its purpose is to establish a transparent economic relationship:
Ecosystem Adoption → Sustainable Revenue → Treasury → MNT Buyback → Burn / Lock → Long-Term Token Value Capture
1. Why This Discussion Matters
Mantle’s strategic focus is increasingly shifting toward bringing real-world financial assets and institutional capital onchain.
If this strategy succeeds, ecosystem activity should generate measurable economic value.
However, ecosystem growth and token value capture are two different concepts.
A network can:
● Increase TVL;
● Attract more RWA assets;
● Increase stablecoin liquidity;
● Onboard institutional users;
● Increase transaction activity;
● Generate protocol revenue;
without automatically creating direct demand for its native token.
This raises an important governance question:
> **What economic mechanism can connect the success of the Mantle ecosystem with the long-term utility and value capture of MNT?**
A revenue-based buyback mechanism is one potential solution worth evaluating.
2. Current Treasury Context
Compared with many blockchain ecosystems, Mantle is in a relatively unique position because its Treasury itself holds a substantial amount of MNT.
According to Mantle’s official Treasury dashboard, as of September 14, 2026:
● Total Treasury size: approximately $2.41 billion
● MNT: approximately $1.75 billion
● MNT share of Treasury: approximately 72.7%
● BTC: approximately $232 million
● ETH: approximately $227 million
● Stablecoins: approximately $110 million
This means that the economic performance of the Treasury is already closely connected to the long-term health of the MNT ecosystem.
Therefore, the question is not simply:
> “Should Mantle buy MNT?”
The more fundamental question is:
> **Should a portion of newly generated economic revenue be systematically allocated toward MNT value capture?**
3. Proposed Principle
I propose that Mantle DAO study the following framework:
Revenue
↓
Eligible Net Ecosystem Revenue
↓
Treasury Allocation
↓
MNT Buyback
↓
Burn / Lock / Treasury Holding
↓
Long-Term MNT Value Capture
The key principle is that buybacks should be funded by sustainable economic revenue rather than by simply selling Treasury assets or issuing additional MNT.
This distinction is important.
A genuine revenue-based buyback mechanism should mean:
> Mantle generates economic activity → Mantle generates revenue → A predefined portion of that revenue is used to purchase MNT.
This creates a clearer connection between ecosystem success and token economics.
4. What Should Be Defined as “Revenue”?
Before discussing specific percentages, Mantle should establish a transparent definition of eligible revenue.
For example, the DAO could evaluate the following categories:
A. Protocol / Network Revenue
Potentially including:
● Sequencer-related revenue;
● Protocol fees;
● Application fees that are legally and contractually attributable to Mantle;
● Other recurring revenue generated by the network.
B. Treasury Investment Revenue
Potentially including:
● Staking yield;
● Lending yield;
● DeFi strategy income;
● Other Treasury investment income.
C. Ecosystem Revenue
Potentially including:
● Revenue generated by Treasury-supported strategies;
● Revenue generated by Mantle-controlled infrastructure;
● Other recurring economic revenue attributable to Mantle.
However, not all funds entering the Treasury should automatically be classified as revenue.
For example:
● Asset price appreciation;
● Token transfers;
● Capital deployment;
● Return of investment principal;
● One-time asset sales;
should be classified separately rather than being treated as recurring revenue.
The objective should be to clearly distinguish:
> **Revenue ≠ Treasury Balance ≠ Unrealized Asset Appreciation**
This accounting distinction would significantly improve the credibility of the overall system.
5. Proposed Buyback Formula
Rather than setting an arbitrary fixed amount, the buyback size could be linked to realized eligible revenue.
For example:
Option A — Conservative
5% of eligible net revenue → MNT Buyback
Option B — Moderate
10% of eligible net revenue → MNT Buyback
Option C — Higher Value Capture
20% of eligible net revenue → MNT Buyback
The specific percentage should not be predetermined at this stage.
These percentages should be evaluated based on:
● Treasury sustainability;
● Operating expenses;
● Ecosystem incentive requirements;
● Liquidity needs;
● Legal and regulatory considerations;
● Revenue volatility;
● Long-term Treasury growth objectives.
The first governance vote could simply authorize further research and the development of a formal framework.
6. Revenue Allocation Waterfall
A more mature system could adopt a revenue allocation waterfall.
For example:
Step 1 — Operating Requirements
Funds required for:
● Core development;
● Security;
● Infrastructure;
● Audits;
● Necessary ecosystem expenses.
↓
Step 2 — Treasury Reserve
Maintain a predefined reserve ratio.
↓
Step 3 — Ecosystem Investment
Provide funding for strategic growth opportunities.
↓
Step 4 — MNT Buyback Allocation
Allocate a predefined percentage of remaining eligible revenue to MNT buybacks.
↓
Step 5 — Treatment of Purchased MNT
The DAO determines whether purchased MNT should be:
● Burned;
● Locked for the long term;
● Retained in the Treasury;
● Burned and locked according to a predefined split.
This structure can prevent ecosystem development from being sacrificed in order to maximize buybacks.
7. Buyback Execution
If approved, the mechanism should be executed transparently and predictably.
One potential implementation would be:
Monthly or Quarterly Buybacks
Mantle should not attempt to time the market. Instead, buybacks should be executed according to a predefined schedule.
For example:
> Monthly TWAP execution or execution at fixed intervals.
This can reduce the possibility of the Treasury attempting to predict short-term market tops or bottoms.
The DAO could also establish:
● A maximum percentage of daily trading volume;
● Maximum permitted slippage;
● Approved execution venues;
● Smart-contract-controlled execution;
● Public transaction records.
Every buyback should be independently verifiable onchain.
8. How Should Purchased MNT Be Handled?
This is the second major governance question.
Several models could be considered.
Model A — Permanent Burn
Purchased MNT is permanently removed from circulation and supply.
Revenue → Buy MNT → Burn
This provides the clearest supply-reduction mechanism.
Model B — Long-Term Lock
Purchased MNT is deposited into a non-circulating Treasury contract.
Revenue → Buy MNT → Lock
This does not reduce total supply but can reduce circulating supply.
Model C — Buyback and Burn
Purchased MNT is handled according to a predefined allocation.
For example:
70% Burn / 30% Treasury Lock
This approach can balance supply reduction with strategic flexibility.
Model D — DAO Determination
The DAO periodically determines how purchased MNT should be handled.
This provides the greatest flexibility but also introduces greater governance uncertainty.
9. Why Buybacks Alone Are Not Enough
A buyback mechanism should not be presented as a guaranteed method of increasing the MNT price.
Its economic objective should instead be:
> **To increase the value represented by each MNT in relation to the long-term economic activity of the ecosystem.**
Token prices are influenced by many factors, including:
● Market liquidity;
● Overall crypto market conditions;
● MNT supply;
● Treasury assets;
● Ecosystem growth;
● Investor demand;
● Token utility;
● Market competition;
● Macroeconomic conditions.
Therefore, this proposal should focus on value capture, rather than short-term price appreciation.
10. Anti-Manipulation and Governance Safeguards
A professional buyback program should include appropriate risk controls.
Suggested safeguards:
1. No discretionary market timing
The Treasury should not attempt to predict market bottoms or tops.
2. Public buyback policy
The buyback formula should be disclosed in advance and remain consistent.
3. Onchain transparency
Every transaction should be independently verifiable.
4. Revenue verification
Eligible revenue should be verified through an independent dashboard or accounting process.
5. Maximum allocation limit
The buyback percentage should be subject to a governance-approved maximum.
6. Emergency pause mechanism
The DAO or designated governance mechanism should be able to pause the buyback program in the event of:
● Smart-contract vulnerabilities;
● Extreme market volatility;
● Treasury liquidity emergencies;
● Regulatory uncertainty;
● Security incidents.
11. Proposed Dashboard
If Mantle implements this framework, I strongly recommend creating a dedicated public dashboard.
MNT Value Capture Dashboard
The dashboard should display:
| Metric | Example |
|---|---|
| Eligible Revenue | $20 million |
| Buyback Allocation | X% |
| Buyback Amount | $XX |
| MNT Purchased | XX MNT |
| Average Buyback Price | $X.XX |
| MNT Burned | XX MNT |
| MNT Locked | XX MNT |
| Cumulative Buyback Amount | $XX |
| Cumulative MNT Burned | XX MNT |
| Remaining Supply | XX billion MNT |
This would allow every MNT holder to independently verify whether the value-capture mechanism is actually operating.
12. Potential Long-Term Economic Model
The long-term objective should be to establish the following mechanism:
Phase 1
Build the Ecosystem
RWA
DeFi
Stablecoins
Institutional Capital
Liquidity
↓
Phase 2
Generate Sustainable Revenue
More users
More transactions
More assets
More financial activity
↓
Phase 3
Capture Economic Value
Treasury revenue
Protocol revenue
Investment revenue
↓
Phase 4
Return a Portion of That Value to MNT
Buybacks
Burns
Locks
↓
Phase 5
Create Stronger Alignment
More ecosystem activity
→ More sustainable revenue
→ More potential MNT buybacks
→ Stronger long-term value capture
This would establish a clearer relationship between:
Mantle Ecosystem Growth ↔ MNT Token Economics
13. Proposed Initial Governance Process
I recommend advancing this proposal in several stages.
Stage 1 — Forum Discussion
Discuss:
● Whether a buyback mechanism should be established;
● The definition of eligible revenue;
● Legal and regulatory considerations;
● Treasury sustainability.
↓
Stage 2 — Data and Research
Publish:
● Historical revenue;
● Treasury income;
● Revenue sources;
● Revenue volatility;
● Simulations under different allocation scenarios.
↓
Stage 3 — Temperature Check
The community votes on whether Mantle should develop a formal MNT Buyback Program.
↓
Stage 4 — Formal MIP
The detailed proposal should specify:
● Revenue calculation formula;
● Allocation percentage;
● Execution frequency;
● Execution method;
● Burn / lock policy;
● Risk-control measures.
↓
Stage 5 — Snapshot / Governance Vote
MNT holders vote on the final mechanism.
↓
Stage 6 — Onchain Implementation
If approved:
Revenue → Buyback → Burn / Lock
All transactions should remain publicly verifiable.
14. An Important Question for Mantle
Mantle has already invested significant resources in building onchain finance and RWA infrastructure.
The next stage of the discussion should not focus only on:
> “How large can Mantle become?”
It should also ask:
> **“If Mantle becomes a successful financial network, how should that success accrue economically to MNT?”**
This is the core question that this proposal seeks to address.
A strong ecosystem and a strong token economy do not automatically emerge together.
Mantle DAO should therefore begin designing a mechanism that connects the two.
15. Proposed Temperature Check
I propose that the Mantle community discuss the following question:
> **Should Mantle DAO develop a formal revenue-based MNT Buyback Framework that allocates a predefined portion of sustainable eligible ecosystem revenue toward purchasing MNT, with the DAO determining whether the purchased MNT should subsequently be burned, locked, or retained in the Treasury?**
Possible options:
A. Begin developing the framework
B. Continue researching the concept before holding a governance vote
C. Do not pursue a revenue-based buyback mechanism at this time
The objective of this discussion is not to establish a short-term price target for MNT.
The objective is to determine whether Mantle should establish a transparent and sustainable mechanism for achieving long-term MNT value capture.
Final Thoughts
Mantle has already demonstrated that its community is capable of governing a large Treasury and deploying capital toward ecosystem development.
The next step could be to establish the following transparent relationship:
> **Capital → Ecosystem → Revenue → Token Value Capture**
If Mantle is able to generate substantial sustainable revenue, MNT holders should have a clear governance framework through which the community can determine how much of that economic value should be captured by the token.
Build the ecosystem.
Generate sustainable revenue.
Capture economic value.
Align MNT with the long-term success of Mantle.