Absolutely supportive of extending the migration for v1 rewards.
In the dynamic world of crypto, unforeseen circumstances can often impede our ability to promptly address every aspect of our investment portfolios. I find myself in a position where, due to time constraints and shifting priorities, I haven’t been able to reassess my cryptoasset allocation. Consequently, I’m faced with v1 rewards that will not be unlocked before after the migration period…
To those expressing reservations about extending the migration period by the proposed three months, I ask: What harm could it possibly cause? Extending the timeframe doesn’t detract from the project’s overall goals; instead, it offers a lifeline to those, like me, who need a bit more time to transition seamlessly.
Consider this: by supporting the extension, we demonstrate a commitment to our community members who have steadfastly supported the project from its early days, particularly through v1 staking. Why not extend a helping hand to these loyal supporters, who might once again contribute to the project’s success by embracing the new possibilities with BEAM?
In essence, extending the migration period isn’t just a pragmatic solution for individuals facing time constraints—it’s a gesture of solidarity and gratitude towards the community that forms the backbone of this project. Let’s ensure that everyone, regardless of their current circumstances, can actively participate and benefit from the advancements we’re making.
100% agree with this proposal. There are obviously a significant number of people who will be adversely affected if the deadline isn’t extended. It is for the common good of the community. I don’t understand why people are against it.
Some of you guys that are against it, can’t you see the logic in these discussions?
I understand that it’s been decided at 12 months previously but in a vote where 82 entities voted, and obviously none of us that have been implicated participated. Now there’s some learning based on that decision, and hopefully as a fair DAO we can see this and correct the harsh deadline that was set up in the first proposal.
So much positive happening around BEAM at the moment, please don’t let such an insignificant decision (in the greater whole) ruin it for a number of individuals and divide the community.
Let’s unite and keep a positive spirit around the future of BEAM
Vote is up on snapshot: Snapshot
This is the good thing that the vote is up, but I am a bit disappointed that this only open for 48 hours, given the fact it concerns many people who don’t have a daily/weekly look at what is going on…
I only discovered it 7 hours after its opening, only because I opened Twitter (not on a daily basis) and by chance saw the post about it…
@Lars11 @mhpruner @LoremIpsum223 @Co_Rekt @adiosratrace @Santino @wutwut we’re counting on your vote for the MIP-30 as well
If you can please advertise as much as you can around you (social networks, etc…) so that we can reach people that are not aware of what is going on with their $eMC unclaimed or under locked vesting
@Koni Couldn’t agree more. Only giving the vote 48 hours just makes it even more obvious that the inner circle (full-time members) of this DAO does not want to give the other members of the community a change.
I’m baffled by the lack of compassion in this DAO.
I thought the same. On the other hand, there are still constantly people checking in to telegram who discover that they also still have unclaimed v1 rewards. So even if this proposal passed, there would likely be quite a few left out who would then feel just as you and I and all these others feel right now.
I doubt the DAO is in favour of it, but if we want to be inclusive of all MC supporters, independent on how frequently they have time to check in, we may have to come up with another solution to make everybody hole.
Exactly. And the core team in Telegram seems pissed off that this is an ongoing discussion… Why do you think that is People are getting rekkt by your stunt.
I’m sitting here thinking that if it is indeed bridge risk that is the issue, then how about keeping the migration end period as is, and then leaving af 24h - 48h window after e.g. 3 months time for the last people to migrate, and that’s it.
we may have to come up with another solution to make everybody hole.
Somebody on Twitter was wondering if the eMC could be migrated to eBEAM and be locked/vested the same way they currently are
@Koni worth looking into. My fear is that the devs looking into this would not be objective about it, since it seems they are all in favour of the whole “I win, you lose”
That’s exactly one idea I also had. Even waiting for another 12 months and only then having a 48h or whatever bridging window. In that case, we could “collect” every single person who only recognized their lost v1 rewards when they migrated their MC to BEAM.
I’ve been thinking the same thing, and I think that’s another valid proposal which should mitigate bridging risks
Well I took a different route. Didn’t like what’s going on with this so I sold BEAM so if I lose a few rewards so be it. I’m out
Ok now there is something I don’t understand.
Locking up the majority share of initial contributor tokens for at least 4 years
- hundreds of millions of $MC tokens are locked until April 2026
The $MC → $BEAM migration deadline is the 26th of October 2023.
So I from what I read, for many $MC tokens from initial contributor: they will be unlocked after the migration deadline, so not possible to migrate them to $BEAM
I didn’t see anything about those 2 in MIP-28 nor MIP-29 that would allow an early unlocking.
So is this more than just “only the people with eMC that will be unlocked after deadline can’t migrate”? but initial contributor tokens are concerned as well?
@Koni, without reviewing the proposal, I believe the v2 Pool could be changed, so everybody who staked in there could withdraw all their rewards. At least that’s how I understood it. Also seems to be the case, since almost all big MC-holders have voted with a “no”, most of them presumably had staked in v2.
Quick recap: so far 36 bigger “no” voices are outvoting the 52 smaller “yes” voices on this proposal. I guess it was the expected outcome, even though like my peers, I couldn’t really understand the reasoning. It seems like an emotional decision. Hopefully we can reengage after the bridge is closed and find another solution.
From what I see there are way more YES for smaller wallets, and now we have big whales accounts with more than 20M $BEAM (~$400k) voting NO.
There wans’t such big wallets in previous MIP votes, even less that many.
Even though we would have had the majority of YES, the whale wallets have more voting power.
We’re reaching the limit of this voting system: now whales are in control of future MIP decisions.
The vote for MIP-30 is finished, but I would like to address your statement:
MIP-30 was the first vote where BEAM was used as a governance token. All votes before used MC. Where 1 MC gave you 1 vote power, 1 BEAM gives you now 1 vote power too. If you divide this total result by 100 and compare it to previous votes you’ll find out that the participation is somewhere in the middle of the previous 2 votes. And there have been wallets voting with 1m+ MC (=100 million BEAM).
You are technically correct the best kind of correct
My mistake, I forgot the ratio and dumbly compared the numbers. I’ll edit my previous post.
Thank you for pointing this out!
edit: apparently I cannot edit my previous post, there probably is a time limit after which edition is not possible anymore
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.