100% Agree with a rebrand to start a new era of Merit Circle and I generally agree with the proposal. It’ll also allow us to throw more of our weight behind the development of Beam as an ecosystem.
Mainly agree with the points by @sub. The data in the post is compelling and I do believe we need to discuss more extensively on how to tackle the distribution/migration.
I’m also interested in more underlying data on the 1:100 basis. That being said, I do prefer 1:100 over 1:10 purely based on gut feeling. However, do we have some data on what the gas costs and average (micro)payments will look like in $MC numbers? I’d imagine that paying gas and micropayments etcetera do seem cheaper and more reasonable in decimal numbers, but that other payments or purchases would require non-rounded. Backing @drcomot here. So, curious to that
He also makes a good point on the Merit Circle branding. Aside from losing the brand recognition of Merit Circle, what would other pro’s and cons be for rebranding to Beam?
As for the rest
Agreed with splitting the proposal into different votes
Agreed on further discussion the duration of the swap
Strongly disagree with incentivising early swaps capital-wise. As for honorary badges, totally cool with that
Agreed with not airdropping. It will remove all lost/idle tokens and will clean up the numbers
I like the proposal except 1 thing: Having a 3 month deadline to swap during bearmarket.
I’ve seen a lot of people being away from crypto for 1 year or more, especially during a bearmarket.
Most will return when markets improve , likely and hopefully in 2024.
Having your MC in your own wallet is kind of having a bankaccount.
Let’s not make us worse then traditional banks, because they will screw you in a lot of ways, but even banks wouldn’t dare to do this.
Be your own bank is what crypto is about, so if you decide for whatever reason you’re away from crypto for several months it can’t be that all your MC will be worthless because you missed the swap deadline!
Besides the possible legal problems this might cause in the future I also think it’s just not ethical to not keep a longer swap option available.
These hibernated people will never gonna vote for the proposal as well
Why would it be a problem to leave the swap open till the end of 2024?
I’m in general in favor of the prop but with the 3 months swap term i’ll vote no. An example;
Thorchain (Rune) had Bep20 Rune, ETH Rune and Native rune. People had 12 months to swap all to native rune before Bep and Eth rune became worthless. They communicated a lot but still a lot of people missed it. Retail and inexperienced people will not always keep up to date with a project. A lot just buy, store them on a cold wallet and check back in the next bullrun. These would be a fucked in the arse with a 3 month swap term.
Merit Circle should be bigger than fucking over the little man or woman who bought into the project and the premise…We as a DAO should be bigger tha just saying “unswapped tokens being burned is good for us” How can we ever again say we are in it for the little guy who wants to be part of a community of gamers and for gamers if we rape the little guy in a way like this. Espescially when we wanna give BEAM the best start…Do we want BEAM to be recognized for the awesomeness it will bring to every gamer out there or do we want it to be know as the project that started by screwing mostly little and unaware holders…
BEAM should be bigger than that, a DAO by gamers and for gamers should definetly be bigger than that. While i want BEAM to hit the scene with the biggest BIEM possible I will vote no…
No major problem with this. I think it’s wrong that the conversion is only available for the rest of 2023. Surely any merit circle token should be convertible at any time. No one should lose cash because they have not or been able to complete the activity by the end of 2023.
This is a big opportunity for the DAO to go headfirst into Beam and be recognised correctly as a Gaming DAO rather than a p2e guild. It is something that can only be seen as a net positive and I will be voting YES.
There are concerns about the 3 month migration period and this not being “fair”. In my opinion this is ample time to migrate tokens from MC to BEAM and if you have an indefinite conversion period this will be a big negative for the DAO as there is no incentive to migrate the MC tokens to BEAM. A conversion period is essential to ensure that this rebrand and focus shift to Beam is a success otherwise it is a pointless exercise.
I hope that the community understands the opportunity this proposal presents and doesn’t squander it by insisting on no limit to the token conversion.
We have the end of the majority of V1 staking rewards vesting in November and now this conversion opportunity. 2024 has the potential to be the real beginning of Beam if this proposal is accepted in its current state. Fingers crossed the right decision will be made!
PS. Look at the market since this proposal was announced, it is good as it is!
Good to see so many opinions and thoughts being shared. Thanks!
That said, It seems many people across a variety of social media channels are still misunderstanding what the migration entails.
A 1:100 token conversion (MC to BEAM) is essentially the same concept as a stock split in the world of traditional stocks. In both cases, the goal is to adjust the format or scale of the assets without changing the overall value or market capitalization.
During a stock split, a company divides each existing share into multiple new shares, typically at a specific ratio like 2:1, 3:1, or, in this case, 1:100. Similarly, in a token conversion, existing tokens are divided into a larger number of new tokens, maintaining the same total value but making each individual token’s denomination smaller.
Both stock splits and token conversions aim to make the assets more accessible and liquid for investors while maintaining the same underlying value. Thank you for highlighting the parallel between the two processes.
So please, keep asking questions if you don’t understand it, but don’t for a minute think there is extra supply coming in. That’s factually wrong, and not how this works.
Could you please explain what is going to happen with the Binance listing of the token and its conversion, I see that question here recurrently but no one has answered it for days. Thanks!
This is my own understanding, Team can correct if I am wrong.
The order of events is first DAO should approve of the conversion, then DAO shall create, audit and launch the smart contracts & a simple UI to convert MC → Beam.
Once that happens, anyone can bridge to ETH and interact with the smart contract on ETH to do the conversion themselves.
At the same time, DAO core members will inform the centralised exchanges of the token swap and request them to automatically swap tokens held by the exchange on behalf of the holders on their exchange.
Some exchanges will agree and do it themselves . Some won’t . Who will and who won’t are not at the discretion of the DAO. They will try from their end.
We will have to wait and see which exchanges convert automatically. We can’t predict this now.
Nevertheless you can always bridge to ETH and convert this yourself in case the exchanges won’t.
MC will be converted 1:100 BEAM. Will there be any other BEAM tokens created? Apart from the ones converted from MC. Or will all BEAM tokens in existence be converted MC tokens? That is an important question.
It seems like everyone is aligned with the proposal, but most pushback is around the 3 month window for token conversions.
Perhaps it would make sense to imlement a mechanic whereby from the 1st January, the conversion ratio begins to drop such that people still have the ability to make the convert but the longer they take the more heavily they are penalized.
“The changes 1-4 above must be read in conjunction and any proposed change may only be conducted if all changes are meant to be conducted (e.g. changes referred to in 1, 3 and 4 all rely on the deployment of the smart contract referred to in 2).”
As I understand the above text included in the proposal, any of the above changes are interrelated and as such must be carried out as a cohesive set (i.e., altogether). As the majority (85%) have voted yes for this proposal… It follows that the next stage of voting cannot split the proposal into the 3 different points of concern that have been raised in other channels (i.e., to vote separately on token conversion, duration of a deadline, and whether it is 1:10 vs 1:100)… While I understand some may want this to be voted separately, the majority have effectively spoken by voting yes to what is clearly all 3 points outlined in this proposal, and as such the next stage should be voted in a single proposal (where the DAO can then decide if they want it to be implemented as is). If the majority are unhappy with this outcome, they can vote no and this entire proposal can then be revisited as separate points surely?
After careful consideration, we have decided to abstain from participating in the active vote for the finalized MIP in its current form, which includes the proposed 3-month deadline. Although we strongly advocated for the 3-month timeframe, we acknowledge that it could potentially create conflicts and/or problems for certain stakeholders. It’s worth noting that even the alternative proposal of a 12-month deadline mentioned elsewhere, while reducing the likelihood of conflicts due to its extended duration, still carries the potential for friction among these same parties.
We’ll thus formally say the following:
We agree with the MC-BEAM swap ‘system’
We agree with the 1:100 swap rate
We withhold from a vote for the specific timeframe and technicalities.
I hope that clears up any concerns towards the DAO and the team.
Thank you for all the great engagement again on another important proposal for the Merit Circle DAO. It is clear based on the replies here, and conversations on other social media platforms, that there is a lack of clarity for people on how the proposal will be fulfilled technically, or what the consequences will be from certain design decisions. Therefore, we will propose an initial vote on the overall idea of the proposal (a simple YES or NO on the migration), and we will then take a bit more time to come up with the complete technical proposal. The second proposal would include all technical aspects and design elements of the migration. However, this initial vote still needs to be completed so that we can start talking with all relevant stakeholders, such as exchanges, MMs, seed investors and other community members.
@kabramanan recently on Telegram informed the DAO about a similar token migration process by Lybra Finance. They have had (we think) only a 1 month migration period. Many people were upset as a result of not seeing the set deadline. It’s with this in mind that we believe it’s likely beneficial to the Merit Circle DAO to perhaps reconsider a supposed deadline. After having talked to a variety of parties the past two weeks it’s clear that this needs to be taken in account to keep the migration process as smooth and user friendly as possible. After all, we can’t objectively assume that everyone reads the announcements on time.
It’s a clear tell that people were - and rightfully so - upset about missing the Lybra Finance project’s migration deadline. We shouldn’t underestimate the amount of idle ‘hodlers’ who might not look at the news daily or even monthly.
Guys, people out there staked MC for 4 years, expecting to set it and forget it. You canceled that - okay. Now you want to convert to a new token on an aggressive timeline?! Give people a long time to convert, don’t be greedy and unreasonable.
