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
3.14 which means we are going to see increase in total supply?
Token functionality would be a good point to elaborate on.
1:1 token conversion
1 Like
How will the delegates transform?
这很好，确实需要一个优化的解决方案，希望明确未来的方向
1 Like
还有我们的代币设计方案和灵感是什么，社区讨论的结果吗
什么灵感？ bitdao 推出2 年了 因为100亿的总量 导致无法增长， 现在我们的总量还需要增加3被 就是 1：3.14， 100亿都没办法控制好币价了 流动性很差 现在300亿 那不是更容易砸盘？ 一个好的项目 不是说得有多好，价格呈现一切， 就像btc 如果你说有价值， 但是价钱一直不涨， 谁会认为这个是一个有价值的物品？？
can you just reply our concern? discussion without a respond between each other is not a discussion.
1 Like
agree with you.need some explaintion.
Makes a lot of sense, hopefully the BitDAO team will seriously consider.
Very good point on passive holders. Might churn many long term supporters.
That’s confuse using 3.14 instead of 1:1
1 Like
Is that you want push down per new token price to attract new comers as more zeroes? 1:3.14
More tokens should probably lead to lower price per token as compare with per Bitdao now
I fully support the idea. But the number 3.14 introduces a misunderstanding in the situation, please clarify why exactly?)
The Mantle team invites all to join a Twitter Space tomorrow at 2PM UTC to discuss the Mantle token design and token conversion parameters.
Set a reminder to join, and ask any questions you have about the proposal in the comment thread under the scheduled Twitter Space
The conversation ratio should be 1:1 irrespective of total supply of 10bn $BIT,the total supply of $MNT should be made known
1 Like