I’m so happy to have tried and used your app/dapps what a great experience to be one of the people to try this! we hope what happens here will be a success on mainnet and all the hard working team i really appreciate your efforts
1 Like
The main thing is to scale this ethereum.
Cheap and fast transactions are the main concept of L2.
The cheaper the more attractive.
I suspected that there would be a rebranding 
1 Like
walking from 1 link to another is somehow unacceptable different tweeters different discord 1 project 1 ecosystem 1 token and also 1 management token how to call it is already the 3rd thing
I also support this proposal, I have long supported the Mantle project, and I will be with you in the future. We need to provide good competition in the Level 2 market for the Ethereum mainnet. I think Mantle will be able to provide a good competitive product.
This proposal is an innovative one in the ecosystem, in fact i think it stands a chance of taking mantle to greater heights.
I’m in support of this proposal. Here is my reasoning:
-
Most importantly, the narrative around BIT is currently confusing. It is currently too difficult to convince people that Mantle will not have its own token and that BIT is the token of Mantle.
-
This is a unique opportunity adjust the token distribution in a way that more deeply empowers and engages the community. We should carefully model the token allocations to increase the share of tokens being distributed to the ecosystem, and really reboot the brand and expand the community
-
I also am glad that we are carrying out the token migration and rebrand at this time. Such a migration should be completed before the launch of the Mantle mainnet. A token migration after we’ve launched our mainnet is actually likely to be MUCH more technically complicated. Switching the gas token in production could be a nightmare.
6 Likes
My full support for the proposal to convert a new Mantle token and bring value to the network. The token acceleration is seen as a positive move and there is enthusiasm for the future of the L2 ecosystem.
1 Like
Based on the information you provided, it seems that the proposal is potentially good one. The one brand one token would be a good idea, but everything have a pros and cons.
It’s important to note that any investment decision should be based on a thorough analysis of the company’s financials, management team, competitive landscape, and other relevant factors.
Can you also provide the possible cons if it is ok? As some people do not even care to read and just vote.
1 Like
Hi Goodo. Mantle will be hosting an AMA on Thursday, May 11 at 2PM UTC. I’ve included your question in the list of questions to cover.
Great, I probably know the answer of my question 
They must release the rest of the tokens before the end of the conversion period $BIT-> $Mantle, but we don’t know even approximate conversion start date and duration
I support this proposal and I think it’s the best way to move forward, Token holders are the main force and strength of each each crypto project and giving them such benefit cannot be over emphasized on the kind of effect it will have on them.
A well though out and forward thinking proposal. Less confusion makes adaption more viable. This clarity will go a long way in terms of one ability to asses this project, taking into consideration all of its moving parts. The Mantle brand and image must be clear and distinct and this proposal aims to achieve this and the same with regard to the tokenomics, vesting and governance. I support this proposal!
I completely agree with the observations, I think the situation is well described. The goal is clear and shared.
Regarding the proposals: “One brand, one token.”
We already have a unique token, and I do believe unifying the brands is a great idea. Making Mantle the main name of the brand is consistent with what is being done in competing projects, which are themselves managed by communities.
However, at this stage, I think it is premature to change the token ticker and the token itself. The token design is not clear in the proposal, what are the features being discussed?
As for the conversion, there are multiple questions to consider:
• Is it a manual action for token holders?
• Is it necessarily on Layer1, or is there a possibility of withdrawing directly on the Layer2 Mantle?
• What will happen to small holders who will have gas fees that are just as high or even higher than the amount of assets they hold to carry out the conversion?
• Alternatively, is a snapshot possible, with the conversion automatically sent to Layer2? This would not require any action from users or gas fees, but what about tokens on exchanges? Or smart contracts?
In fact, this requires very broad and repeated communication because everyone has integrated that BIT is the native “gas token” of Mantle. Making a modification just before the product launch could, in my opinion, be counterproductive, leading to confusion in the community.
But yeah, i must agree, it s “now or never”.
From a technical standpoint, I have even more reservations, as this entails risks that must be measured in advance. Finally, changing the tokenomics without a more precise analysis is also a risk factor.
In reality, from what I understand, we are talking more about a modification of the vesting, rather than a real modification of the tokenomics? If it is “only” that, then that is great.
Regarding governance and the management of resources and treasury, it is perfect 
Token holders retain their same rights, and the DAO continues to function as before. The same goes for existing initiatives.
Regarding naming conventions, it is common sense and also perfect. In summary, I find the proposals very good, with some reservations about the token change.
2 Likes
Based on the proposal, it appears that consolidating the branding under the Mantle name and simplifying the tokenomics could lead to greater long-term token holder prosperity and success for the Mantle Network product.
One benefit of the proposed changes is that it could potentially reduce confusion among users and investors who may be unsure about the value proposition of $BIT and how it fits within the broader ecosystem. Consolidating under the Mantle brand and simplifying the tokenomics could provide a clearer message about the platform’s focus on Mantle products.
However, there are also risks associated with any rebranding and restructuring effort. It is possible that some users and investors may be resistant to change, and there may be initial confusion as the community adapts to the new branding and token conversion process. Additionally, the proposal notes that there may be some complexity in determining how to value $BIT for its governance and product components, and it is unclear how the proposed changes will address this challenge.
Overall, whether the proposed changes are beneficial or not will depend on a variety of factors, including how well the community adopts the new branding and how effectively the platform is able to communicate its value proposition to users and investors.
I’m personally new to the BIT and Mantle ecosystems,so I vote for a positive unification change, as i cant miss what I never had!
1 Like
It does not offer a clear and compelling alternative that would improve BitDAO’s brand, token, and tokenomics.
I wholeheartedly support this proposal for several reasons. Firstly, merging the brands before the Mantle mainnet release is a strategic move that will help create a unified identity for the ecosystem. This will ensure that users, developers, and token holders can associate the token and its value proposition with the Mantle brand, reducing confusion and strengthening the ecosystem’s image.
Secondly, simplifying the tokenomics and adopting a “One brand, One token” principle makes it easier for users to understand the relationship between the token and the chain. Instead of having to explain what $BIT is and how it connects to the Mantle ecosystem, users can more easily grasp the value and purpose of the token when it is named after the chain. This can also help with the adoption of the token, as users will have a clearer understanding of the token’s role within the ecosystem.
Moreover, the proposal to accelerate all BIP-20 contributions and BitDAO launch vesting schedules simplifies the token’s circulating supply and makes it more predictable. This will benefit token holders, as they will not have to deal with the complexity of outstanding vesting schedules inherited from the original BitDAO launch.
In conclusion, I believe this proposal is beneficial for the long-term token holder prosperity, as it simplifies the branding, tokenomics, and governance while preserving the rights of token holders. By creating a unified ecosystem brand and token, we can foster greater user and developer engagement, facilitate Web3 adoption, and ensure the long-term success of the Mantle Network and its associated products.
2 Likes
Agree with the proposal, to be honest, I was confused in the first expression about BIT & mantle network, was wondering if this is some project related to Bybit or CEX. So if united into one brand and follow the network it will have better brand image.
I have been following the Mantle project for a long time. We need to ensure good competition in the market. I definitely support this proposal.
The proposal to unite the BitDAO and Mantle brands based on the “One brand, One token” principle and simplify tokenomics shows potential for creating long-term value for token holders and increasing the success of core products. However, some areas require further clarification or adjustment.
To ensure a smooth transition, the community needs to be well-informed about the brand and token unification process. It is crucial to provide clear instructions and sufficient time for community members to adapt to the change.
Combining the BitDAO and Mantle brands may cause confusion among current community members and potential new users, so it is necessary to explain the advantages of the unified brand and ensure that this aligns with the project’s long-term vision and goals.
The token conversion process requires more details, such as the conversion rate, timeline, and channels, to ensure transparency and convenience for token holders.
Although the proposal aims to preserve current governance rights, it is important to address how it may affect the autonomy of individual projects or subDAOs within the ecosystem. Guidelines or examples for maintaining autonomy within the unified brand would be beneficial.
To ensure that the community comprehends how the new token will benefit the ecosystem, a comprehensive overview of its utility and features is essential.
By addressing these points, the proposal can create a stronger foundation for token holder prosperity, product success, and governance rights preservation, resulting in a more robust plan for the future of the Mantle ecosystem.
1 Like
Definitely need to unite everything, I support.
And it looked strange, there is a token for bybit, a separate abmasador, a separate testnet mantle
Whether it is connected was not always clear