I strongly feel that it should be an airdrop not a conversion contract.
81% of BitDAO holders hold <$1k worth of $BIT.
It is very likely that the cost of conversion will eat 10% of their holder value.
As a DAO our job is to ensure all holders are protected fairly in any contract changes.
Hence would suggest to the team to consider a Mantle airdrop to BitDAO holders.
Why nobody answer our questions? Isnât the answer already there before propose this solution? What is the total supply of MNT? We all canât see the benefits of this conversion 3.14, instead, it will create a sense of fear and confusion, also 10B supply for Bit is too much and one of the reason people dont join us. And we keep asking for token burn. Now 32B? No way.
Two obvious problems with this method:
The fair way to do this is to airdrop the new MNT tokens to existing holders, this way every holder, big or small will be made whole.
This is a standard industry practice as seen with the recent GALA V2 upgrade too, which went smoothly and successfully.
Whatâs the min $BIT token to convert?
Hi everyone! Amazing work with this proposal and the overall transitionâŠ
My two gweisâŠ
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 canât 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 âhigienicâ 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
1:3.14 seems cool in reference to the value of pi but hope there wonât be a problem later⊠My opinion on that will be itâs 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 doesnât 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 âstyleâ and âphilosophyâ then i will support this proposal.
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 donât 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 feesïŒ
And also how long is the period of you guys open for token conversion? There is always investors who âwoke upâ a couple of years later to convert their token. How do you solve this?
English is not my main language and Iâm sorry if I sounded rude.
Thank you for the attention.
Itâs not about conversion ratio. Itâs about max supply. 1 BIT to 3.14 MNT and max supply 10 billion MNT shall be great.
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
I want to ask two things.
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?
Shouldnât you have a detailed explanation, instead of letting the proposal pass and then slowly explain, are we really a DAO?
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 âmemory effectâ of the old token price that can additionally raise the price by a few percent, maybe we will see $MNT around $0.3 
I disagree this 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
My voice is âYESâ. 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? Thatâs 31.4 billion too much, and weâre not doing very well at 10 billion bits. We should learn a lesson. I believe the team will have a better exchange plan