@cateatpeanut does this mean the total supply will increase? What it will do with the price? What the total supply will be? Why don’t make this clear before the voting process?
@Ben.Zhou will bybit convert our bit Automatically? Will bybit still have launchpads/launchpools after the switch to $MNT? Can you make this clear?
I imagine that the intention helps to give more value to the $MNT token helping the holders and the developers and also the token can quickly show a symmetry with the project ecosystem.
What will be the network and conversion rate between BIT and MNT?
Thank you.
Seems like a 1:1 token conversion would be simpler and have less of an effect through the conversion process. I see that a lot of others share the same concern.
What launch for $MNT ?
BIT holders and testers must be allowed for the launch how can you reward ? Or maybe like an AirDrop ? Soon its be revaled
잘되길 기원합니다 전환율도 나쁘지 않습니다.
I think 1:1 conversion rate is good
3.14 is confusing and I don’t know what the advantages
$bit max supply is 10,000,000,000, ill assumed the total supply for mantle will be 31,400,000,000 based on 1:3.14 bit to mantle conversion. if this the case, i will vote NO
i’m not sure why conversion ratio is 1:1…
This agreeable. Basically, Mantle Network is new project. We don’t have to adhere $BIT as a native tokens. $BIT does not even representative Mantle Network, as its token ticker is not the kind of same.
Conversion rate is not too bad.
where is the reason for the ratio?
Exactly what I was thinking,
As for the number Pi, this action in my opinion is slightly strange. Let’s start with the fact that the token conversion is not 1 to 1, gives us a sense of confusion. Of course, your premeditation will give some advantages in the form of increased interest in the token and the Mantle itself, as well as large volumes (but they can also be seen in 1:1 conversion). Now from the cons. Please correct me if this is not the case, but I understand that the conversion for CEX can take much longer than on DEX, thus the price in different markets will differ for some time (BIT / 1 price value) and (MNT / [1/3.14 = ~0.3185 price value]). It’s not a fact that this will be the case, most likely you will solve this problem in advance, but it creates potential problems for you if everything goes wrong (An agreement with exchanges to convert tokens at the same time takes a lot of effort and energy, and not the fact that everything will be smooth, but the time spent on these questions can be directed to more important tasks.) Let’s omit this situation and look at another one. The price during conversion will have to change by ~3.14 values to the bottom, as the number of tokens will increase by 3.14 times. This action does not give a very positive factor - confusion. It is expected that at the time of conversion, the price will be very volatile. It will be difficult for ordinary users to understand which price is normal, since before the price change of 1% was 0.01 of the value of the price, and now it will be 0.03… and thus will create a sense of fear and confusion.
Notice: Current max supply: 9,219,316,768 BIT and we had planned to reduce around 2.7 billion more in future. This is the best tokenomics for MNT:
Convert ratio: 1 BIT to 3.14 MNT
Max supply: 10 billion MNT
Everyone happy.
there are so many confuse
i hope there will be an ama to let us more understand about the future conversion plan
I strongly disagree with this proposal, the exchange ratio is unreasonable, and there is no description of the amount of mnt after the exchange, and the possible loss of the exchange to the user, and the content of each proposal vote is less than the actual implementation of the content, and the DAO organization is obviously controlled, so I call on everyone to oppose this proposal and subsequent votes, and publish a serious protest in the community, and refuse to operate insider.
1:1 conversion sounds better,though I don’t know the technical reasons behind the 1:34 rate
this change will create a lot of problems, but if the team is confident in its abilities, I support this change
need more details why 1:34?