Cancel all future V2 & V3 staking rewards and unlock all V2 stakers

If we terminate staking and change to Beam nodes to provide MC as a reward, the degree of reward is determined by the length of time the user provides the node to determine whether it is feasible.

Or our don’t want MC tokens, use MC OG pass NFT to provide special rewards

Hello first time here, I think.

  • Removing rewards from v2 and using them for Beam just creates the same (problem) scenario in the future.
  • I am unaware of what Beam Stakers will receive. I read somewhere revenue, gas, and stuff that increases the more successful Beam is.
  • So I suggest not burning the v2 rewards, but using them as an incentive for builders to use Beam!
  • Burning is nice, but building is better.

the MC tokens (and the dumpening of them) transfer from staking rewards to builder incentive rewards. Only my guestimate is that builders will be responsible for the increased demand for MC.


Problem is with $MC emission from staking rewards, not the staking itself right?
Why not just change the staking rewards to % of whatever token we are invested in from now on instead of $MC?

  • Project that we invested in will get $MC holder as their holder
  • no $MC emission from staking
  • LP provider will still get rewards from staking

Correct. Rewards for Beam Nodes will cause the same issue as current. So ideally Beam Node rewards should not be fixed but variable and in proportion to gas fees earned on Beam.

I suggest let’s keep the Beam Node Rewards discussion out of this proposal and restrict it to discussion on current V1/V2 single stake / LP rewards system.

We can discuss Beam Node rewards via another proposal.



I’m Honey.
I’m a 3, 6 and 12 month V1 staker.
I’m a 12 and 47 month V2 staker.

I will share a story.

Once upon a time in the vibrant world of blockchain, there lived a trader and investor named Pepo. Pepo was known for her keen eye in the market, making profitable trades and investments. She had mastered the art of buying at market highs and selling at opportune moments. However, despite Pepo’s expertise, there was a lingering question that haunted her.

Pepo observed the ups and downs of the market, carefully analyzing the movements of various assets. Yet, amidst her successful ventures, Pepo noticed that the value of MC, one of the cryptocurrencies she had staked, continued to decline. This perplexed Pepo, as she couldn’t fathom why, out of all the assets she had traded and invested in, MC seemed to defy her expectations.

Determined to uncover the truth, Pepo delved deep into the mechanics of staking, specifically comparing the features of V1 and V2. She discovered that V1 had boasted a staggering 100 million in rewards and similarly V2 offered 30 million. This revelation struck Pepo like lightning. The rewards system appeared economically unfeasible and unsustainable, leaving Pepo to ponder the implications.

As Pepo ruminated over her findings, a vision began to form in her mind—a dream of a blockchain utopia bathed in the colors of radiance. This vision represented a new world, a realm called BEAM. In Pepo’s dream, BEAM thrived with a multitude of games, talented developers, and enthusiastic builders. The people within this blockchain paradise reveled in their prosperity and happiness.

However, a dark shadow loomed over this dream. Pepo realized that the old MC stakers, including herself, were absent from this envisioned paradise. They had capitulated and abandoned the MC ecosystem due to the flaws of the staking system. Pepo yearned for the dream to become reality, where everyone, old and new, could unite and revel in the promised land of BEAM.

Awakening from this vivid dream, Pepo was struck by the realization that it wasn’t a mere fantasy; it was a glimpse of the future—a future that demanded action. Pepo understood that if everyone desired a bright future for her and others, she needed to advocate for the removal of Staking V2.

With determination in her heart, Pepo sought out like-minded individuals, pooling their collective knowledge and expertise. She formed a group of smart minds who shared her vision and recognized the need for change. Together, they set forth on a journey to reshape the landscape of the blockchain.

Days turned into weeks, and weeks into months, as Pepo and her allies tirelessly worked to realize her dream. Finally, their efforts paid off, and the removal of Staking V2 became a reality. A collective sigh of relief echoed through the community as everyone witnessed the positive impact this decision had on the ecosystem.

As the dust settled, the blockchain flourished. BEAM, the promised land, began to materialize. Games were developed, developers thrived, and builders crafted new wonders. People from all walks of life flocked to this vibrant world, united in their pursuit of happiness and prosperity.

Pepo, the visionary, watched with a mix of pride and joy as her dream manifested into a reality. She realized that her journey had not only transformed the blockchain but also rekindled hope in the hearts of countless individuals. The removal of Staking V2 had set the stage for a brighter future, where everyone could partake in the bounties of BEAM.

And so, Pepo’s tale became a legend, passed down through the generations—a testament to the power of dreams, determination, and the unwavering belief that change is possible. The story of Pepo and her quest to create value.

I propose:

a. Cancel V2
b. Unlock V2
c. Distribute accrued V2 rewards via a claim system
d. Letter of intention to support Beam value (validate, delegate, build)

As for c, one could argue semi-vested (e.g. 10 days), but I leave that up to the DAO.

Thank you for reading,

Honey Barrel
Vanquisher of non-Frens
The Freefolk Fellowship



4 year locked LP staker here,

Agree that single sided MC staking emissions serve no purpose and makes sense to cut them. LP incentives however are useful. Instead of removing 100% LP staking incentives, perhaps they can be reduced to a more reasonable level? Also, it would be awesome to have concentrated liquidity with Uni V3 or with Maverick Protocol, as less TVL would go much further.

Another idea, as more users migrate to L2s, it might be smart to build liquidity on Arbitrum instead of just mainnet. Incentives could be offered through Trader Joe or Uni V3 to rewards active stakers in concentrated pools.

As a random data point, if my LP is unlocked and everyone’s rewards are unlocked, I will exit LP then wait for dump, then use ETH from LP to buy the blood.

1 Like

Yeah it is another discussion, but gotta be clear to not just transfer the XXX million of MC rewards over to the next problem (and discussion)

1 Like

now thinking about v2 reward distribution over shortened vesting time, might be that technically it might not be worth the effort and let the rewards be claimable in full at the same time as v2 staking positions become unlockable.

Regards v1 staking those who are complaining it is not part of this proposal, however it should be as there are still locked v1 staking positions accuring rewards from v2 reward pool. Personally I have v1 LP postion coming for unlock in October 2023 which still is accumulating rewards. So it is good to discuss what would happen with rewards for those postion. Lock obviously is not something we can do about as it is still v1 immutable contract.


Tokens can be taken out of the sMC v1 contracts using that function called from the MC DAO multisig.
Same goes for eMC. (Does not require burning)

Tokens can then be airdropped to their owners.

Its trivial to do this and does not require any additional smart contracts.
Tokens can then be airdropped together with the V2 rewards using the contract which would already need to be deployed anyway.

The argument of added risk I’ve seen in places is non valid imo.

EDIT: v1 LP stakes could also be unlocked in the same manner



Thanks for your discussion post.

In my opinion, rewards have largely been a disaster and continue to be a primary source of pain. The allocations were overly generous and the free buffet food was spat out and relentlessly dumped on the floor. I’ve been strongly against even considering a V3 so I’m glad some common sense is prevailing.

First thoughts:

Commingling of V1/V2 since November 2022.

(Yes, this has nothing to do with V1 100M reward allocation.).

Staking V2 started in November while many were still locked in V1 and couldn’t make the switch over. Those DAO members locked were/are given V2 rewards by remaining in the same V1 pool. Will these V2 reward payouts be treated differently than those who are simply locked in the V2 pool contracts?

Maybe it’s a dumb question with an obvious answer… they’re still in the V1 pool, getting V2 distribution, but under the V1 immutable contracts?

Another question - Things like team pay (not founders) have a minimum 1-year staking “obligation”, what will happen to these if they are unlocked? No idea the significance or size.

Voting Power - If we’re going to stop V2 staking, we need to evaluate what will happen to our “weights” on governance voting. All voting power will remain on V1, but wiped out on V2 which will cause a large imbalance. Maybe we return to 1mc = 1 vote?

Some V2 data points courtesy of sub (ty sir) - (

  • sMC: Single # MC Total - 55,013,642 MC
  • sMC: Single # MC Locked - 30,099,492 MC
  • sMCLP: # MC/ETH LP Total - 142,132 MC/ETH LP
  • sMCLP: MC/ETH LP Locked - 107,307 MC/ETH LP

Can someone share the total out of the 30M that’s been rewarded? I’m guessing like ~20M?

Combined, this will be a large unlock but c’est la vie.

I’m in favor of:

  1. Canceling the existing V2 rewards mechanism.
  2. Early unlocking of the single-sided MC and MC/ETH V2 pools.
  3. Early unlocking of the V2 rewards, giving us a clearer path forward.

Best regards,




I agree with the overall idea of stopping V2 and future staking rewards asap, as this model has proven to be unsuccessful, with the price being negatively affected by dumpoors.

However, I do have some minor concerns:

  1. Understand this proposal is all about v2, not v1, but here is my take - I believe the non-believers probably have already sold their stake and will likely dump the remaining rewards they receive under v1, while those who stake in v2 are probably the remaining believers who keep dca from top to bottom to lower their average + additional rewards (unless data suggests otherwise). Therefore, I feel that the sell pressure in v2 may not be as bad as in v1.
  2. While I support the concept of earning rewards through other sustainable vehicles like BEAM, I would like to see more technical specifications eg the minimum requirements, the % of gas to be allocated as rewards, and details about delegation, among other things. It would be even better if the team could provide these technical specs before the voting process begins imo.
  3. Im curious to know how this proposal will impact CEX earn/staking services. For instance, Binance has an Earn Module where people can earn up to 120 days with 6% APY, and I believe this is funded by the rewards they receive from our current staking rewards.

Regardless of these concerns, I anticipate that this proposal will benefit the DAO, and I will definitely support it.



Greetings, and thank you for the new proposal.

I’ve never understood why we’d need APY in such large amounts. It’s clear that it isn’t working. It’s counter-intuitive. It serves no use.

I favour the following for the V2 proposal:

  1. cancel V2
  2. unlock V2
  3. accrued V2 can be claimed safely

Just so we’re clear V2 cancel is ‘up to’ 30m, correct? Aka 30m minus the remainder APY months. Just so there’s no misunderstanding anywhere.

I’d personally favour a claim deadline contract. I’d also prefer burning the remainder, but if not, have a sensible purpose to these tokens aka actual building on Beam. Not free ‘give-aways’ and ‘airdrops’ like they have been and felt like so far.

You have the full support of the Ascending Galactic Federation with a “YES”.


Erik von Pumpson
Admiral of the MC Enterprise
Ascending Galactic Federation


Hello :wave:

First time posting here.

Staked in V1 not V2. This is about V2. Haven’t sold a single $MC yet. I continue to believe in the project/team and I’m delighted with the direction we’re going with the upcoming launch of Beam as well as the new hires and continuing hiring!

We need $MC for Beam therefore we shouldn’t burn any amount until all that’s figured out. I’m not a tokenomics person but I do hold a substantial amount of $MC and want to get the nonbelievers to shit and get off the pot so to speak. The sooner the better. However I may help I’m ready to serve. Proud DAO member - cate aka Lilybloom.



Good to see this proposal get a lot of engagement, due to its importance.

As well as & as long as the liquidity issue is solved for (it looks like a significant portion could be
covered by DAO, as it holds a large portion of the current LP pool), I would vote in favor of canceling & unlocking v2, as well as allowing any accrued rewards from v2 to be claimed.

I trust that the team can figure out any of the technical hurdles beyond liquidity, as long as
sufficient time is given for testing & audit.

Seed & LP
Has there been any thought about unlocking VC/seed bags, acquired at .032 (currently a low ~5x multiple) ?
There are 2 ways of looking at this:
1.) It could shake out the short-term non-believer vs. long-term convicted VC, at a very low comparative multiple (better than a higher price/multiple down the road).
2.) This would also allow VC/seed backers the ability to dump price (further than it would have otherwise via unlocking LP alone), only to re-buy. This introduces a bit of game theory, aka at which point/multiple would a VC be willing to ’ get out ’ / dump, vs risk their initial.

Incentivization vs Price Appreciation
IMO, this all comes down to a question of incentivization vs price appreciation:
Is unlocking LP’ers / lockers & granting them fully unlocked accrued stake a net positive or negative for the project with a view to the long-term?
Is allowing initial seed backers access to their fully vested bags a net positive or negative for the project long term?


Long time staker, LP’er, believer here -

All I’m going to say is if the contract is broken - meaning the terms set forth upon which I provided liquidity over the years - I would fully expect ALL FUNDS to be AIRDROPPED into my account - including ALL REWARDS are that still vesting.

I have a little story of my own. There was a guy who believed in a crypto project enough to lock up his money in that system, first for a year, then later for 4 years, because he believed in the concept and the team. Then a few people started whining about sell pressure, and that it’s hurting price, so they want to cancel staking and rewards.

Look, sorry, that’s what we all signed up for in the first place. My determination of value is built upon the long term lock-up of liquidity and I don’t really care what the price is for the next 2-3 years - which will be enough time to build out the ecosystem.

Honestly, anyone complaining about the sell pressure RIGHT NOW, is in this for the short term and not really a true believer. They want price up now, so they can sell. I think it’s a dumb idea.

But whatever, if DOA decides to break the contract - instead of holding my tokens, I will sell them for any number of other tokens that will provide better short term returns.

The idea of getting the pain over quickly doesn’t make sense. It’s going to end up much worse than you all are thinking, throw in on top of that unlocking VC seed funds? LOL. We’ll have a price below a penny.


This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.