Still around 5% of all MC, either in the form of eMC or locked MC are not yet migrated, and sadly a large majority of them are doomed to miss the existing migration deadline. We should all be familiar with the “you snooze you lose” and “asking turkey to vote for X’mas” arguments, regardless of whether you agree with these arguments or not, they did hold some truth in their rationale, in gist, simply ignorning the right of the minority and early supporters, by technical maneuver are not fair. Thus, we are here to propose a new vote on Extension of MC Beam Migration Deadline. This vote will differ as 1) it require wider publicity before the vote actually takes place and 2) the vote is confined to eMC and locked MC holders.
13 Likes
I think this is incredibly important. Simply fair to anyone who might loose their eMc, but also essential for the future of beam and this community. I think the mindset of “you snooze you lose” etc. is very toxic.
If you’re a beam holder and happy about those eMc being burned:
- Some of the most loyal and most long-term holders and supporters will be lost
- Those eMc are in the hands of people holding for a very long time, so I don’t expect a lot of selling happening immediately
- Selling like that is medium and long-term bullish since tokens change into stronger hands
- Beam has seen proportionately a lot of scams, both in number and size of the scams. Part of that is also due to this issue. I’ve experienced it myself and noticed many other people who were desperate to save their eMc. Since the community, including a lot of moderators doesn’t care much they got contacted by scammers who promised to help bridge their eMc to Beam. Just one example of how not taking care of the community and leaving issues like this unresolved leads to more scams, which obviously leads to people leaving the beam ecosystem and a bad reputation…
Beam is building such a beautiful ecosystem and community, let’s keep it that way!
6 Likes
Most doesnt really care about point 1-3 tbh. They are happy either way. eMC are just staking rewards, people can still migrate their initials. Take it as losing eMC as a penalty for not keeping up with the utility of the tokens that you buy.
We stick to the burn & closing the migration is actually to prevent point no 4, keeping the migration longer = more risks imo 
1 Like
As it was said in a previous thread, unforeseen life events can make so people missed the announcement and the timeframe window to request for staking rewards (that are locked for the vesting period), even if they do support the project from the beginning…
Some possibilities listed:
- Extend migration deadline
- Migrate eMC to eBeam and being locked/vested the same way
@mhpruner @tmfbernd @wutwut @Santino @adiosratrace @Co_Rekt @LoremIpsum223 @Lars11
5 Likes
Curious to know. So at the time of writing this 5% MC would be valued at around 4.1 mil $ - has anyone looked into how that is spread out? 5, 50, 500 addresses? I attempted to look up the holder count by contract address but it’s not giving me that information.
Knowing this would influence my vote if it came to one again. I’d rather look from the number of holders that got the message and migrated - rather than token count.
3 Likes
I think that’s a great idea. From the previous vote it seems that most whales have unstaked on time, but many smaller holders have not been able to do it on time and will be left behind (even higher concentration of BEAM in big holder’s hands). Would love to see exact numbers.
3 Likes
Hi guys, good topic! I am actually one of the longer holders, locked them up in the stake during bearmarket and finally i looked just a few days to late and now my eMC is re-staked until 7th of november so i am not able to migrate anymore…
What can we do or how can i vote to help?
2 Likes
I too have some eMC that will be locked past the deadline as a result of my personal life getting in the way (my wife ended up having to have 7 surgeries over the past two years so staying up to date on crypto had to take a back seat) and I would love for all MC investors to be treated fairly and allowed to migrate all their locked rewards to BEAM for a longer period of time.
While I do not believe this will likely move forward, as a lot of larger holders clearly seem against doing this as it is not in their direct monetary interests, I want to call attention to the MC Constitution that was passed in MIP-25 (Constitution doc: Constitution of Merit Circle DAO 22023 February 2023 edit.pdf - Google Drive) where one of our values states “All community members should be treated fairly and contributors rewarded appropriately.”. Should this be removed or is this still the case? My (perhaps minority) opinion is that we should be ensuring our community continues to move forward in a fair and respectful way where our own values aren’t at conflict with the voted choices and our decisions shouldn’t be based on just how to inflate our investment values short term, especially by hurting fellow long-term DAO investors/participants. Retaining trust with all members of the DAO as well as the larger crypto community encourages more members to join us which can also increase the value of MC/BEAM in the future and that should not be discounted and thrown away for short term monetary gain.
5 Likes
There was good reason not to unlock eMC and trigger a tax burden (which applies on receipt and not just sale). It is not simply a matter of negligence. Very little notice (1 month?) was given to those with locked tokens. Who would invest in something that wipes out your holdings with such short notice? To not either convert eMC to BEAM or extend the migration deadline is bad business. Both time and eth gas fees were spent to collect those staking rewards.
2 Likes
I agree to all of this. I was a very early investor in MC, but due to life issues missed the window to get any eMC out (which at this point is the majority of my MC tokens). Giving a migration window of 1 year when the vesting unlock period is also 1 year doesn’t exactly give you a big window to act.
3 Likes
I think a lot of us are supportive of this issue, I’m wondering whether it is feasible and abides by the DAO rules to restrict this vote exclusively to eMC holders. Is anyone aware of whether this is allowed? If it is, I think we should assemble a proposal and move to voting.
2 Likes
as the vote may be easily manipulated by BEAM holders through temporarily converting their BEAM into MC prior to the vote, I further suggest to confine the vote to eMC or locked-MC holders.
1 Like
Agreed, but is that possible per the mechanics of the snapshot system and of course the DAO rules in general?
Anyone know how to track the total eMC and locked-MC positions as at now? Please feel free to share. Appreciated.
#2 seems like a very reasonable solution if simply removing the vesting period on eMC is not possible
Are you opposed to migrating eMC to eBEAM vesting ?? This doesnt impact the migration period and doesnt punish people who didnt claim within that short window…
It is difficult to keep up when you are involved with alot of things, and dealing with IRL hardships… Most people do indeed care about rewards they have been farming for the past 3 years by locking up their assets becoming worthless…
I think this suggestion by @Croix to “[exchange eMC directly for] Beam just like MC right now” is the most elegant solution…
…second most elegant being an eMC to eBeam migration…
Extension of the deadline will always exclude some people otherwise… With the above ways everyone is playing fairly and within the same time frame
2 Likes
friend, of course i agree coz it is most elegant but i highly doubt whether beam holder will support
1 Like