[Draft]Proposal 8: Locked new coins minted during 6 months / Reduce inflation by 3 / Reduce max supply by 3

1°) Lock new coins released during a period (6 months, 1 year), it means people will continue to receive coins, but theses coins will be locked during a period in order to avoid any dumping.
2°) Reduce the inflation by 2 or 3, as it is not sustainable to continue on this way.

I’m just a really hungry investor near the bankrupt like many others on the Telegram channel
Coins are dumping on market days after days, that make early investors going to bankrup and hating this project.

We need wait that coin has some support on exchange before to start selling coins.
Here people are dumping non-stop as too much coins are produced and not enough support on Exchange.

On Telegram channel I can read hundred of messages about people complaining about this inflation and Team asking to make a proposal.
This is what I’m doing now, the few people that are voting need take conscience that early investors are going to Bankrup and lost any trust on this project because this constant dumping of the coin.

This hyper inflation need to stop ASAP

So , I hope that theses 2 solutions (Reduce coins released by 2 or 3 + locking the coins released during a period of 6 month to 1 year ) will be implemented ASAP.

Thanks for reading and taking conscience about this BIG inflation issue

2 Likes

Thanks for the proposal. However, The proposal needs to be clear and actionable. I have some questions:

  1. “Lock new coins released during a period (6 months, 1 year)”
    Do you mean that locking the coins minted (including the team vesting coins) in the next 6 months? When and how should these coins be release? linear vesting in another 6 months?

  2. “Reduce the inflation by 2 or 3”
    What does this mean? What exactly do we need to do to achieve this? Half the supply speed?

Hi,

See below my answers:
1°) Yes locked the new minted coins 6 months, they can be added to liquidity but staying locked for sell.
2°) Yes reduce by 2 or 3 the supply speed
For instance, Instead of 2 coins minted, only one coin is minted, so basically it will take twice more time before to reach max supply.

Thanks.

1 Like

Sorry, I have still questions:

First Question

There are two part of token released:

  1. from the team vesting plan
  2. from the liquidity mining

So do you propose to lock and reduce inflation of the liquidity mining part or both the two parts?

Second Question

How does the locked coins released after 6 month:
a. the coins are totally released immediatly after 6 month.
b. the coins are released linearly(second by second) in another 6 months

Third Question

Please choose a value (2 or 3).of the reducation.

First Question:

Yes for both part.

Second Question

It means if a coin is created today, you will need wait 6 months before be able to withdraw it or sell it
If coin can’t be withdraw, probably it can’t be sell, but still people will be able to add to liquidity (if i t is possible)

  • for instance if coin is created on August 24, you will need wait 182 days before to be able to withdraw it, so they will be unlocked the february 21 of next year
  • for instance if coin is created on August 23, you will need wait 182 days before to be able to withdraw it, so they will be unlocked the february 22 of next year

Third Question

Please choose a value (2 or 3).of the reducation.
Reduction by 3

New parameters suggested by some other community member

add some token burn mechanism in the proposal as well.

Divide the max supply by 3 , it should be 33 million instead 100 millions.
That means for coins already released, no burn on it, it will benefit early investors
For the new coins not yet released, there will be burn for coins already minted but haven’t yet been distributed
Need reduce also the max supply
So for instance on coingecko I can read the following
:point_right: Circulating Supply 1 306 608 / 50 598 57
:point_right: Total Minted Supply - 50M
:point_right: Total Supply - 100M

That means the current 1 306 608 will not be burnt and stay same to benefit early investors
The minted supply will be reduced from 50 million to 16,5 millions (Don’t burn coins already distributed, you should burn only coins not yet distributed, that will allow early investors to have some benefit to own MCB )
And the max supply will be reduce from 100 millions to 33 millions.

so basically we should have something like this.after the coin burn

:point_right: Circulating Supply 1 306 608 / 16 500 000
:point_right: Total Minted Supply - 16,5M
:point_right: Total Supply - 33M

2 Likes

This proposal sounds good, I vote to implement it.

1 Like

great proposal, I am also totally in favor of reducing the maximum supply from 100 to 33M. This will be better for everyone both in the short term and in the long term. I also perfectly agree to block new tokens for 6 months or more. I don’t see any point in distributing tokens immediately, since there is no incentive to insure them … everyone is dumping them and causing only the price of the token to drop. We have to think about reducing current inflation

We have three-part: of coins

  1. 25M Team, vesting in the smart contracts
  2. 25M Foundation
  3. 50M Mining

It is impossible to burn the coin locked in the team’s vesting smart contracts. There is no way to burn token locked in smart contracts. In order to reduce the total supply to 33M, the team and the foundation needs to burn 33M tokens. However, only the Foundation could burn its 25M tokens, which is still not enough to meet your proposal.

Besides, if the foundation has no token, there will never be new features developed for MCDEX.. So I do not support such an idea.

We must leave some tokens for the Foundation. So, I suggest you change your proposal to: reduce the total supply by 40%, that the total supply will be reduced to 60M with distribution:

  1. team 25M
  2. foundation 5M
  3. mining 30M

5M is the bottom line of the foundation.

Do you agree?

However, I do not think it works to burn the non-circulating tokens. And all the proposals are aggressive.

1 Like

I disagree with overly-aggressive “one-thirding” of the total supply , as a non-team member.

Yes - that will provide price appreciation immediately, but it will also cause the team to be less incentivised to push product. t-rex, i understand your concern to get ROI on your investment but it should not be done in such ‘extreme’ fashion. whatever token burn we do now, will not see immediate price discovery. Rather, I propose two things to combat the biggest issue I see highlighted inthis thread: inflation.

  1. Rework rate of vesting for Team 25M token. Currently I feel it is too high. We can either work to reduce rate of vesting, or delay vesting by X amount of months. Specifics not outlined here.
  2. Token burn of 10M Foundation to reduce Total Supply by 10% immediately

@t-rex @jie

2 Likes

I don’t get it. Why should there be any change of the tokenomics, they have been clearly stated in the whitepaper and probably every serious investor read the whitepaper before making his investment.
Less miner rewards, will probably pull liquidity out -> hurts the project
Cutting the development allocation, kills the development -> hurts the project

The only people who profit, are the ones who throw some ETH into a Defi Project, to flip the tokens a few weeks later back in profit and leave.

Can MCDEX act on the issue please…i belong to little people…who have lot to lose, blood, sweat and tears…whales they sleep soundly, coz money working for them…not me…my $5K investment is downed to $1K …I cannot cashed out …can’t …coz I lost everything…hoped you guys will come out with staking atleast …so people the whales will have reason to keep their tokens…act fast please…before little people die =(

1 Like

@rune20 talks logical and sensible.

The team has not sold a single MCB yet. So, for the sake of trust, rework on team vesting could be done.

I won’t recommend the token burn. Burning the tokens won’t suddenly shoot up the price.

We have to make the miners hold the token and have more use cases of the token so that there are buyers.

What are your thoughts on - “platform revenue sharing with MCB holders who stake the MCB in a smart contract”? Details can be worked out.

Revenue sharing starts after x months of staking.

1 Like

Reduce supply in 40% - I approve of this idea.

1 Like

I support the 40% supply reduction as a start. If price cannot stablelize even after this drastic cut, we can look further at trimming the excess supply. Foundation with 5m supply might be not enough for all activities at current price. However, if price stablelize or go up, 5m can be enough.

The idea that you should not buy MCB is not a valid one. If no one buy MCB, MCB will be zero value. Why even have a uniswap pool? The idea is to have new pontential buyers/investors interested in the project. Currently, most new potential investor are spooked by the hyperinflation and daily dumping.

1 Like

on token burn : I think it is more appease the hordes of people here suggesting this as an ‘easy way out’ kind of solution. We can take from foundation and no-one gets hurt. Foundation still has 25-10=15M left of tokens, which provides good run-way for any future incentives.

on revenue sharing : yes, this is definitely something that can be done, following Footsteps of AAVE and other exchanges. However, this is a long term outcome and we are far from achieving it. Presently, due to gas prices and the fact that the platform still runs on L1, we are hardly profitable at all. Balance that with the challenge of setting competitive fees to attract traders from other exchanges (e.g. dydx), it becomes a long standing issue that the team have and should set on their radar in the months to come.

liqudity mining incentive: I would urge everyone to take alook at Proposal #5. I feel it is currently a very powerful incentive that will ensure a significant amount MCB being held in personal wallets and off exchange wallets, introducing scarcity and positive price discovery.

2 Likes

Agree with Rune20 we should look at the effect of proposal 5 after it is implemented before taking any decision. In general, I do not think that accounting tricks playing with the supply make a big difference in the long run, the priority of both the team and holders should be to have the best platform possible to attract volume, everything else will follow.

If I can speak frankly for a second.

So far MCB token holders have only voted in favor of self-serving proposals or technical proposals submitted by Jie. I don’t see why governors feel they are entitled to such aggressive policies given how little value they have added so far.

That said, I’d back a modest reduction in the rate at which tokens are vested and would also back a 5-10M token burn from the foundation.

Anything more seems excessive and far too imbalanced given that the team are responsible for the entire project’s development up to this point.

We are developing the “platform revenue sharing with MCB holders who stake the MCB in a smart contract”.

Rather than suddenly cut off some amout of minig reward. We maybe could reduce it day by day.

For example, if we want to half the reward in 365 days, we could make Nth day’s mining reward as:

R=0.998102769^N*2

image

You are a very talented developper and I feel that your time is wasted on debating/implementing all the different supply schedule implementations for people trying to make a quick flip. Either the platform has volume and MCB has value or it does not and toying with the MCB issuance is just toying with the rules of a ponzi game.
I think the priority should be:
-Make the interface more intuitive and more user friendly
-Increase the liquidity. Regarding this question, I know that you have been looking at new curves for the AMM but I think it is good to remember that there is no silver bullet and there is no point in creating volume if it just means putting the AMM on the wrong side of trades. Another way would be to let people take leverage position in the AMM by issuing either eUSD or eETH against AMM position that can be reinvested in the AMM. As I said on the discord I think this makes sense because AMM positions are low vol and not prone to high shift in value.