MIP-30 - Extension of the MC to BEAM token migration period to allow just claimed v1 rewards to still be converted into BEAM

Hi all, I adjusted the proposal based on a lot of feedback in and outside of here. Three key changes:
-Extension of the discussion period to 7 days
-Extension proposed to be only 3 months, to mitigate the concerns of community members regarding risks that a bridge would bring and that 2 tokens would need to be managed for a longer time. But to include all relatively active v1 stakers who missed that they still had unclaimed v1 rewards until they wanted to bridge, while at the same time excluding the much less active members that the community was more or less concerned not adding much value to the DAO. I hope that an extension by 25% / 3 months strikes that balance well.
-a potential time lock is included in the proposal, such that another extension would be technically prevented, in order to mitigate the concern of other community members that this would become a recurring topic

It already is a recurring topic. We voted for over 3 weeks in two proposals to extend it by a year, with a significant majority. You people can’t accept that DAO governance requires activity and staying up to date.

This vote shouldn’t even go through, considering the POLL is manipulated with new accounts sharing the same IP, and quite clearly so (we have proof).

In either case, as the fake-people have spoken, I will vote NO if this were to come to an on-chain vote.


According to MIP-29

  1. Token migration contract accessible for 12 months after deployment. The token migration contract is proposed to be accessible for migration for a 12-month period from the date of deployment.

It didn’t say “12+ months” nor “at least 12 months” nor “12 months at the minimum”.

Proposing extension of migration is in violation of MIP-29, and should require the migration to be reverted.

Thank you, and the DAO has spoken. Revert the migration (can’t), or prevent the vote from occuring. It’s over.

1 Like

“In either case, as the fake-people have spoken” => this is a very serious allegation. I hope you are right, because I feel quite pushed into a corner now as a bad guy who is trying to manipulate something, even though I’m just a normal person who will lose 25% of his MC, just because I forgot about my unclaimed v1 rewards.

Why is this community so hostile towards some members who can’t read week by week? Is there no sympathy at all for long term supporters when they cannot be as active as you are?

1 Like

Full disclosure: I of course shared this proposal with the members of the newsletter I’m running, as many of them are likely in the same boat. They tend to be more patient and less active investors, as they are a generation or two older than us. Some of them might have taken the step to create an account in order to be able to help this proposal succeed and not lose their share of yet to be claimed eMCs. That might explain a couple of new accounts.

Do you mind sharing some numbers you’ve found that led you to the allegation of manipulation? How many new accounts, how many shared the same IP, and how many of them voted “yes” vs. “no”?

Hi everyone

Thanks for this proposal.

I do not understand the rationale and the hostility towards long-term community holders of this project, just because they are not active in discussion and votes on the DAO. What kind of holier-than-thou approach is this in the community?

Please accept that members have different approaches and different commitments (in time and money invested). Many investors (ourselves included) have had trust in the MC DAO, and thus not been active in the discussions because we deemed it in safe hands. Fast forward, we stand to lose a lot of money because of an incentive to punish members that are not as active as others? I cannot understand this, and have never experienced such a hostile approach towards community members with skin-in-the-game before in any DAOs.

We have had LP tokens staked with rewards not unlocking before august 2023, which have left us with 2-3 month window for claiming rewards, or else they are lost. So our reward for committing long-term to the project and providing liquidity is to be punished for not checking in in two months time? How is this fair?

What about people who are sick at the moment (stress, family illness, coma or other serious illnesses) and thus have not checked in on MC in a while? They should just be punished because some of you are full-time? This is a dangerous precedent, and I sincerely hope the DAO can see this and vote in favour of extending the period, even though one has not tokens “lost” at the moment.

We’re fully in favour of this proposal and deem it crucial to the integrity of BEAM going forward.


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.

1 Like

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 :handshake:
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 :pray:

1 Like

@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.

1 Like

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 :smiley: 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.

1 Like

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

1 Like

@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.

According to:
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? :thinking: