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

Hi everyone! Amazing work with this proposal and the overall transition…

My two gweis…

Even though expanding supply in a non hard coded way , as to reward network participants might be a red line, regardless of other protocols doing it, I do understand it , however I would suggest that the trigger of the new minting is completely onchain upon a successful dao vote, so exclusively the voting has ownership of the contract minting function to perform the minting according to the agreed parameters. As read on the proposal it seems it will be like that but would like to have it more clear on the proposal.

Also establishing a long term cap and threshold parameters that can’t be surpassed is something that might be worth discussing so there is a real FDV and there is certainty around the maximum supply and how the supply can be increased in x periods… as an investor I would be more comfortable knowing that there will never be more than xxxxx tokens and that no more than xxx tokens might be issued in a certain period/s.

I do agree that minting only in L1 is more “higienic” and secure and provides greater transparency and accountability of supply, kudos for this.

Conversion deadline should ideally be for a very long term so there is safety that no one will lose funds , at a certain date the transferability of the $BIT token might be restricted to the relevant addresses for conversion but for my experience in other migration processes there is always people that show up in forums years later to ask for the migration.

To demonstrate a user orientation and reduce hassle for $BIT holders I would suggest that the sending of $bit minting of $MNT and bridging to L2 is made in a single step / tx if the user opts in to that possibility , other wise they will receive their new tokens in L1 and bridge on their own.

Also has been discussed whether or not is convenient to mint an extra X MNT tokens apart from the resulting from the conversion for specific needs of ecosystem and community development of a new network? In reasonable quantities (not more than a extra 10 % supply) I think this might be a smart move if the community agrees.

Would also suggest to make this votes more granular and not such in a big block of topics with which voters agree or not… separing topics in different votings might be a bit slower but lead to better decisions. For example in this one splitting the vote in 5 votes for each of the outlined items that people would endorse by voting yes.


I dont agree 1BIT=3.14MNT

1 Like

1:3.14 seems cool in reference to the value of pi but hope there won’t be a problem later… My opinion on that will be it’s better to keep it under 1:1… but the developers know it better so leaving it into your hands.

I agree with this. It brings a lot of confusion, dispute, and even fear. Why not just 1:1?
Being in style doesn’t mean it is necessarily to crack havoc on the community.

And I agree with the initial supply of bit is just way too much and now 31.4B…?

Unless we are given a solid answer and it is other beneficial reason other than “style” and “philosophy” then i will support this proposal.

1 Like

Hi, thank you for the effort of bringing all pieces of important information together in this recent soft proposal.

I find that 1BIT : 3.14 MNT is confusing. Why not just 1:1? I would prefer to get a good perspective that how 31.4B of supply will benefit investor other than a stylish, but meme-suggesting total supply. Many investors including me don’t fully understand what benefit will this conversion will bring and it is confusing.

And is there any gas fees involved while converting?
May I know which party will bear the gas fees?

And also how long is the period of you guys open for token conversion? There is always investors who “woke up” a couple of years later to convert their token. How do you solve this?

English is not my main language and I’m sorry if I sounded rude.

Thank you for the attention.

  1. What is the basis for 3.14? What practical applications does it have? Why should we learn about other L2s that allow for 2% inflation per year? Does MNT not have a “maximum supply”? Is there unlimited issuance?
  2. In what areas does the “benefit to holders” that you speak of manifest itself?
1 Like
  1. Why not announce the swap ratio of 1:3.14 before the BIP-21 vote?
  2. Why 1:3.14 instead of 1:1, 1:2, etc.?
1 Like

It’s not about conversion ratio. It’s about max supply. 1 BIT to 3.14 MNT and max supply 10 billion MNT shall be great.

1 Like

I call on the community to strongly resist this proposal and the subsequent vote to pass it without the team giving the community a full explanation of why, and to reject the insider manipulation of the DAO organization

1 Like

I want to ask two things.

  1. Why we have been burning before, but now the new proposal wants to increase? Or you will actually burn some of the $bit in the treasury?
    Shouldn’t you have a detailed explanation, instead of letting the proposal pass and then slowly explain, are we really a DAO?

  2. Many community members think we are not a DAO at all. Our votes are all overwhelmingly from the big holders. Even if all the retail investors vote no, we can still pass over 90%.
    Can we set a voting limit to make us more like a DAO?
    Or are we actually a DAO of a few, a DAO of the mantle and bybit team?


My amount of $MNT tokens after converting 1:3.14 into total supply will be the same percentage.
The benefit I see is that there is a “memory effect” of the old token price that can additionally raise the price by a few percent, maybe we will see $MNT around $0.3 :slight_smile:

I disagree this proposal.

  1. the exchange rate is unreasonable, there will be more MNT in the market. What data support 1bit → 3.14mnt?
  2. The total amount of MNT cannot be controlled. In addition to the large volume, another 2 percent of supply is likely to be added each year.
  3. There is no clear definition of the cost of token exchange, such as the rate,the payment subject.
  4. Why is this not stated in the BIP21 proposal?

I object, can we make sure how many people participate in the mantle, if the conversion ratio, the number would be more than 30 billion, which is a huge amount. Then why do we need to burn a bit. The team should have multiple options to choose from

1 Like

My voice is “YES”. All suggestions are correct and should be implemented.

1bit=3.14mnt, I object to this conversion ratio. This will lead to an increase in the total amount. What was the purpose of burning bit before? That’s 31.4 billion too much, and we’re not doing very well at 10 billion bits. We should learn a lesson. I believe the team will have a better exchange plan

  • I don’t agree with this proposal. 1bit: 3.14mnt will lead to the increase of the total amount, and there will be additional issuance in the future, which is a very taboo thing in the currency circle. We should have 1:1 or 3.14bit: 1mnt, maybe the team has a better exchange plan. We’ve already seen 10 billion bits of results. People didn’t have enough confidence in the team, and the team didn’t have the capability. Because everyone has been holding it for two years, we haven’t done a good job of 10 billion bit, let alone the total of 30 billion now. Please think it over again

Mantle’s tokenomics are required before deciding to agree or disagree with this proposal

Is there a reason why it is not a 1:1 exchange method?

I hope the conversion rate of 3.14 is not a problem

yes for this part:
The Mantle token, $MNT, shall incorporate functions analogous to the “Upgradability” and “Mint” functions of the $ARB and $OP tokens.

We must be careful to not drastically expand the total supply.

I am for a 1:1 conversion ratio.

1 Like