[PASSED] MIP-22: Mantle Token Design, Conversion Parameters, and Asset Handling

Reserved for comments and updates.

Thank you for all the valuable feedback provided on this forum, through community managers, and during the AMA. The purpose of this discussion is to gather sentiment from all stakeholders and community members. It is important to note that forum posters represent only a portion of the feedback we have received.

Here is a response to the more frequently asked or controversial issues:

Update 1

Re: Conversion Exchange Rate

Our initial analysis indicated that the conversion exchange rate decision should be largely sentiment-driven in and in the best interest of Mantle and $MNT. Mathematically, the exchange rate used does not have a dilutive impact since all holders, including the Treasury itself, will maintain the “same share of the pie”.

However, the choice of using 3.14 as the conversion rate has proven to be controversial and has generated negative sentiment instead of a net-positive one. We acknowledge the benefits of keeping things simple, as suggested by the community, and avoiding unnecessary distractions from more important matters.

Recommended: Change to Proposal Term #2

“2. The one-way token conversion ratio shall be set at 1 $BIT token to 1 $MNT token.”

Re: Conversion Costs

To enable the conversion process to be free for users, we recommend implementing the following method:

Recommendation: A Conversion Cost Rebate Program

For a series of periods after the conversion window is open, we will:

  1. Query on-chain records of all smart contract conversions during the period.

  2. Filter for malicious behavior and other criteria.

  3. Determine the target amount of rebate.

  4. Send qualified users the target amount of rebate in ETH.

Additional notes:

  1. Each period will be approximately 1 month, and we will run this program for up to 5 periods.

  2. We will build a simple dashboard for users to check the status of their rebates.

Under normal circumstances, all users who utilize the conversion smart contract will be rebated the their exact amount of the ETH gas fee. Items #2 and #3 have been included to mitigate intentional griefing that could lead to unnecessary cost to Mantle. While we considered other more automated methods, they carried a high risk of exploitation or griefing.

Re: Mint Function and Potential Supply Changes

The decision to Mint will be determined by Mantle Governance, which currently involves the forum discussion process and a token holder vote. As an additional safeguard, it is anticipated that a series of discussions and MIPs will be required before distribution of minted tokens can take place:

  1. Approval of the upper bound of the Mint, which is currently set at 0%.

  2. Determination of whether and how much to Mint within the upper bound. By default, there will be no annual Mint, and based on the current treasury resources, there is no foreseeable need for Minting in the near future.

  3. The Minted tokens will be held in Mantle Treasury, under the control of Mantle Governance. This means the minted tokens will not immediately impact the circulating supply. The distribution of minted tokens from the Mantle Treasury will be carried out through the Mantle Governance process, likely via a budgetary MIP.

Regarding aggregators and the perception of supply:

  • Aggregators such as Coingecko do not necessarily consider the ability to mint to be reported as “infinite” Max Supply. Examples include $ARB and $OP.

  • One significant advantage of the Mint function is the increased flexibility it provides Mantle to vote on burning $MNT tokens held in the treasury, thereby reducing the Total Supply, Max Supply, and FDV. We are currently conducting an analysis on this matter, and it will be the subject of a subsequent discussion and proposal.