Deprecation plan for legacy wZNN

Many returning aliens have lamented their forgotten holdings on BSC and I think it’s time to address the technical debt.
I’m sure the community’s uncertainty hasn’t instilled much confidence in these folks; it may influence their decision to leave or stay.

Let’s discuss some options.

Option 0: Status quo

Thanks for playing!

Option 1: Swap on BSC
  • Deploy a contract to BSC that accepts the old token as input and reimburses the same amount to the user
  • Dependency: bridge must support BSC
  • Cost: inexpensive
  • Time: unknown
Option 2a: Snapshot + Claim on BSC
  • Take a snapshot and deploy a merkle tree contract to BSC
  • Dependency: bridge must support BSC
  • Cost: inexpensive
  • Time: unknown
Option 2b: Snapshot + Claim on ETH
  • Like 2a, but deploy a merkle tree contract to ETH
  • Cost: relatively expensive for the user
  • Time: any time we want
Option 2c: Snapshot + Claim on extension chain
  • Like 2a, but deploy a merkle tree contract to the extension chain
  • Dependency: the extension chain’s mainnet must be live
  • Cost: inexpensive
  • Time: tbd
Option 3a: Private Reclaim on NoM
  • Host a service that allows users to sign a message with their Metamask wallet and claim ZNN on NoM
  • Private ledger
  • Dependency: service provider manages frontend and backend
  • Risk: service provider is trusted to manage funds responsibly
  • Cost: feeless
  • Time: any time we want
Option 3b: Public Reclaim on NoM
  • Like 3a, but the ledger is published and auditable
  • Dependency: service provider manages frontend
  • Risk: service provider is trusted to manage funds responsibly
  • Cost: feeless
  • Time: any time we want
  • Downside (privacy): BSC ↔ NoM address relations will be published on-chain

I’ve taken the initiative to capture a snapshot of legacy wZNN from the time of its inception to the block after the last legacy bridge transaction.
Whether we use this data or not is up for debate.

After much deliberation, I’ll open up a poll to gauge community feedback.
I’d recommend reading the thread before voting.

Depending on the result, we will probably follow up with a pillar vote to reinforce the decision.
The plan will likely be carried out in 2024-2025.

What should we do with the 87k ZNN?
  • reimburse holders with a snapshot
  • reimburse current holders
  • do nothing
0 voters

Thank you taking initiative on this @sol

Can we confirm, when the bridge was depreciated was all the locked ZNN in the bridge transferred to the AZ contract? And that for every wZNN on BSC there was an equal amount allocated on the NoM?

If so to me it makes sense to release equivalent znn to anyone who can prove they held the wZNN on BSC before your snapshot - perhaps with a percentage penalty for the hassle, which will remain in the AZ contract

Claiming would be on a case by case basis. Proof can be a tx to a specified wallet from the prospective wZNN wallet?

Just throwing out some thoughts for discussion

I can’t find the transaction but Sumamu provided some insight here.

We should have enough ZNN to reimburse all legacy wZNN holders.

Post-snaptshot cases:

  • User thought it was going to 0 given price action and sold at a loss
  • User found out bridge was deprecated and tokens useless and sold at a loss
  • User bought not knowing bridge was deprecated and tokens useless and held
  • User knew tokens were useless and yolo bought

Regardless of the situation, if we go with the snapshot route, we make all these and similar valid “market” actions invalid.

I think we should choose the cleaner option moving forward, whichever requires 0 explanation. I’m done explaining stuff in the future: “yeah, if you were in the LP and holding wZNN previous to the summer solstice, you get xZNN.”

To me we either choose:

  • Thanks for playing!


  • Make every wZNN on BSC whole wherever (extension chain, private ledger, public ledger, etc)
1 Like

The later would be catastrophic. People had one year.

1 Like

Better we deal with this sooner than later.

If we don’t reimburse these holders, the network will have effectively stolen 87k ZNN without any notice.
The excuse of “they had one year” was only for transferring tokens from BSC to NoM, not entirely forfeiting those funds to the network. We never said that those tokens would be void.
The penalty for not adhering to the instructions at the time was being locked out of NoM until we devise a plan – this plan we’re debating now.

We have the ability to make them whole.
I believe this is the right thing to do and people will appreciate that.

Personally, I think we should snapshot and announce the existing tokens are absolutely worthless, so people can pull their liquidity. We may be deploying a replacement wZNN on BSC in the future and this legacy contract could complicate things.
I don’t think we should reward speculators that would profit from other people selling at loss because of Mr Kaine’s bridge closure.

Or we announce the BSC token is an isolated proxy investment for ZNN and will be redeemable for a native version in the future. The supply cannot change, people can add liq and trade if they want.
Again, I think some people will be upset if we suddenly support this market after abandoning it.

That doesn’t sound very complicated to me. “We snapshotted this block height, claim your tokens here.”


Aren’t you basically rewarding people who said “screw this I got rugged again and sold after the snapshot?” I don’t understand why this market participant is more valuable than the others.

The volume is not 0. That market has moved for a long time. We can see this in the amount of people that have joined tg lately.

is this a fancy way of saying we make every wZNN on BSC whole?

Listen, whatever decision we take, the second it becomes “official” the market will react:

If we forfeit the tokens, the market goes to 0 from 30 cents
if we announce a snapshot, the market prob doesn’t move much. We actually want this to go to 0 or arbitrage to parity with ETH wZNN. That’s a lot cleaner, imho.
If we officially support BSC wZNN it will be bought and either arbitraged down or up into the wZNN ETH liquidity when markets get connected.

Essentially, we’re paying for Mr Kaine’s poor communication and lack of support.
Anyone that failed to bridge in time was holding an unsupported token; I wouldn’t blame them for dumping.
Those tokens were valid up until Mr Kaine closed the bridge. In my mind, they should be able to claim the full value of their holdings, even if they made a little profit afterwards.

I don’t see why we should be rewarding trading bots and speculative degens, the ones who were producing trading volume until now. The entire community had decided to abandon the token, following Mr Kaine’s lead. No reasonable person would have bought that token unless they thought we’d suddenly announce support one day.

1 Like

Option 0 is the wisest path, at this time.

In 3 years there will either be very large transaction volume, or none at all.

In due time, we will have ample resources, or none at all. As a decentralized project, we should operate with the absolute lightest effective touch. Options 2 and 3 seem heavy handed to me. Option 1 requires a new contract and bridge.

Mt Gox is the analog.

Let nature takes its course. This isn’t for us to solve, right now. When the solution finds its time, it will be very easy to realize.

First of all thank you @sol for this initiative.

Clearly deprecating the BSC.wZNN token can’t really happen because even if the active community considers it deprecated, the holders could always come back and argue about it.

So as long as there are any holders, there’s always a chance for this to happen, as we’ve already seen.

Therefore, as much as I would’ve liked to solve this situation without a BSC bridge, the snapshot solution will only be temporary, because there will still be some BSC.wZNN holders since it can still be traded.

What happens when new holders BSC.wZNN holders join the community and argue that they didn’t know?

The only permanent solution is for the BSC.wZNN supply to go to zero.

So our options for achieving this would be:

  • snapshot only BURNED tokens and take the snapshot one supply goes below a threshold
  • bridge to BSC and deploy a simple contract that allows holders to burn the old BSC.wZNN and claim the new one

On the other hand, while writing this post, I’ve also been thinking that very few BSC.wZNN holders have actually expressed interest, and it’s been a long-known fact that the BSC.wZNN token has been deprecated.

Deprecating a token has worked for other projects, so why not this one?

The rune token on BSC and ETH were deprecated over a period of time like we did. Having all these tokens out there creates overhead and I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a “small” but mighty project to sunset a token as conditions change. I think people who invest in small cap crypto projects must expect stuff like this to happen. It’s a regular occurrence.

I have legacy tokens that I expect this to happen and I check into TG or Discord ever few months just to make sure they aren’t going to burn their tokens.

Not sure the answer, but dedicating a lot of resources to this right now could be a distraction. Do we want zUSDT, side chain, zk, or bridge to BSC? Tough decisions. Maybe the legacy token holders should gather a bounty to compensate a dev to recover them. As was mentioned in TG, we are all community members with limited resources. We cannot go to our “financial partner” to fund this.

Depends on the outcome of this thread but I would assume the response will be “You bought the wrong ticker, silly!”

Many of us have grown accustomed to this, but my point is that we should decide how we will use those 87k ZNN. We have the ability to reimburse, but will we collectively decide against that?

I’d like to clarify: most of the options have dependencies that we will probably have in the future.

Merely knowing the plan is better than not having one at all.


Agree, I lost tokens in several projects. Some of them are still active. I don’t think it’s anyone’s fault beside myself.

With that stated, the tokens exist in the mainnet supply and can very plausibly be reclaimed in the future. Worst case scenario, once the value of that 85K ZNN reaches a certain value, a bridge will be built.

That’s the beauty a actually a strength of NoM. In centralized projects, their deprecated tokens will never be reclaimed. In NoM it’s possible.

what if we ask people to submit an AZ and proof of ownership with a signed message from the BSC account?

1 Like

That doesn’t scale well with 1000+ holders.

We’d still have to take the snapshot first, otherwise ownership could change.

Depreciation of the BSC contract is essential - whether it’s bridged across or burned doesn’t matter. We need to remove this invalid market sooner rather than later.

Do we all agree on that point?

Could we also take the same approach with the community members who have legacy znn stuck on Mercatox, now that they have confirmed that they did not swap to alphanet. If members can provide proof of ownership of the legacy znn on Mercatox they could be reimbursed using the same mechanism as wznn stuck on the deprecated bridge

True. Was hoping it was < 10 people. But when $ZNN hits $1000 might be a different case. I honestly don’t know what to think. Burning old wrapped tokens after announcing the event for more than 12 months happens in crypto.

Here is my recommendation. We wait. We have the snapshot. When the price goes up these tokens will be worth more and maybe the wZNN BSC holders can hire a dev to retrieve them. They could fund the work as a Percent of funds retrieved. My $0.02.

1 Like