This conversion rate of 1BIT=3.14MNT doesn’t seem to be clear yet.
The total supply of BIT is about $10B
Going by this conversion, that means MNT will likely have 31.4B total supply.
Are you trying to create a meme coin or something related?
Why not 1:1, 2:1?
Please, this does not sit well with me personally.
I would support a 1:1 token migration as this will keep things simple and straight for everyone. Issuing new tokens should always be decided by DAO
I support it and I think this will add value and a different movement because judging from the bit development itself from the last year it is not that good and it is hoped that the migration to MNT token will have a good impact.
[image]
What is the total supply of MNT? Hopefully with 1:3.14 conversion with the most reasonable total supply
1:1 or 1:3.14 are the same. Whatever,
Should not airdrop MNT before converting BIT to MNT. Don’t release all big airdrop amount. They will dump on holders. Do not airdrop MNT before listing and do not unlock at TGE. It should be later
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:
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.”
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:
Query on-chain records of all smart contract conversions during the period.
Filter for malicious behavior and other criteria.
Determine the target amount of rebate.
Send qualified users the target amount of rebate in ETH.
Additional notes:
Each period will be approximately 1 month, and we will run this program for up to 5 periods.
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.
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:
Approval of the upper bound of the Mint, which is currently set at 0%.
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.
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.
I agree with 1:1 Wise modification
1: 1 is the best exchange ratio to avoid $MNT quantities exceeding 30 billion
1:1 (10 bil) and 1:31.4 (around 30 bil) are same. We should concern about the next step: burn and airdrop. Beware of airdrop campain. It will be bad effect on holder
it would be nice if the 1:1 conversion rate was better
1:1 conversion rate is actually best.
First of all, thanks for listening and taking the community into account!
Now could you give more details regarding: what is your analysis regarding the impact on the price?
What is your analysis regarding the response of the DEXs and CEXs in which BIT is currently traded?
Just saw the news regarding the conversion. Great decision. I know people will be much more comfortable with the 1:1 token conversion.
What is conversation rate ?
I think 1-1 ratio conversion is best
Thank you very much for taking into account the opinion of converting tokens 1 to 1.
i think the Conversion rate is good
How was calculate conversion ratio Bit > Mantle 1:3,14 and why this way?
I mean Mantle is a new token so how was calculated its value?
Cant we convert BIT to Mantle through Bybit exchange?
As for me, not an acceptable token conversion.
Why the number pi?