Sure, it’s the cleanest solution in terms of killing off the old token.
There’s no guarantee that every token will be burned or liquidity pulled.
And it hurts the people that panic sold after we stopped supporting it.
1 Like
All solutions come with tradeoffs however this one is conceptually elegant no? Let’s say every tokens on BSC can be burn indefinitely:
Cons:
- We add a little bit more supply but not that much. Roughly 3 months of inflation is I’m not mistaken.
- People on BSC aren’t equal, some have sold, some didn’t.
Pros:
- The additional supply might be even lower due to people never burning their wZNN from the BSC chain. The ones who will burn will do so over time. Overall the impact could be negligible.
- Community members can rejoin. Some of them could even be future contributors.
The snapshot solution provide roughly the same outcomes with a twist as the ones who sold post snapshot can now enjoy free money and keep their wZNN. Someone on one side of the market will be unhappy whatever is being decided. However the non snapshot burn address solution would shut down complains forever.
Who remembers this Medium article?
To prevent swap apathy, we are introducing a novel Swap Decay mechanism intended to stimulate participants to transition to Alphanet as fast as possible.
Thinking long term, replacing or updating those cryptosystems with quantum-resistant cryptography is a matter of how not when.
If proven a success, the Swap Decay mechanism will be re-used for NoM Phase 1 to smoothen the transition to state-of-the-art quantum-resistant crypto systems. Efforts will also be made to improve and standardize the solution to be suitable for other established cryptocurrency networks.
@Rom Regarding the BSC token migration, every participant had more than enough time to bridge their BSC tokens back to NoM. Why didn’t you swap them on time? It’s your responsibility to keep track of what’s happening and you also had plenty of time.
I lost many tokens because I didn’t swap them on time or because it is no longer possible. Do I blame anyone for this?
If you care about your investment both in financial and emotional terms, you need to always keep an eye on those tokens regardless of market conditions: all summer long no one bothered to ask those questions. I suspect many speculators were awakened by the pump and want to capitalize on the good faith of our community.
If you are in crypto, you should know better than anyone that with great power come great responsibility: self-custody, token migrations, etc.
5 Likes
We never announced that the wZNN tokens would be forfeit.
1 Like
My recollection is we did. I think .org had a banner on their site and tweeted many times. But I would need to spend time fact checking myself.
Maybe after we pull all the zenon_network tweets we can search them quickly.
@mehowbrainz didn’t you have a banner on .org? Or am I smoking something?
I to agree with @sol on this. The communication was a disaster, as it always used to be back then.
However in the end it doesn’t matter. You guys are having the wrong discussion and doing so, you’re completely missing the point: what benefits the network? We will always disagree on what’s fair and what’s not. So let’s look at this from the above perspective. What I see is the following:
- The additional supply is not that much. The network doesn’t care.
- Even if some woke up on this pump, it doesn’t matter. Ultimately allowing BSC wZNN to be redeemed would allow some to jump back in and amongst them, there might be future contributors. THIS benefits the network.
- What about being on the wrong side of the market? The network doesn’t care.
- The network however cares about getting rid of the BSC fud for good.
3 Likes
It was announced many times on official twitter page, that tokes should be moved of bsc and that bridge would be closed, than the deadlines kept moving forward many times, so in reality there was enough time for people to move tokens back onchain
Wrong discussion again.
I agree that it would be a good idea to get rid of the fud connected to bsc, but some people bought those tokens for a fraction of their cost after the bridge was gone and letting them move them back onchain is not exactly “fair”
As said above we’ll always disagree on what’s fair and what’s not and at the end it doesn’t matter. At the end I could say some people bought but are so unfamiliar with crypto that they didn’t get what was happening. Those people exist. What’s fair for them? Ultimately, there’s always someone on the wrong side of the market and so what ? It’s a mere blip in the sea. We call it an arbitrage. There are many. This shouldn’t even be considered. Let’s burn all BSC tokens and move on free for good.
PS : I also remember Syrius not mentioning the bridge closure anywhere. This was the crappiest communication ever…
1 Like
Maybe now some people that bought those supper cheap zennies are on the wrong side of the market and might want to get on the right side by persuading everyone that it is the right thing to do.
How does this matter from the network perspective? There will always be arbitrages. Whatever we announce and decide, smart people will play.
From the network perspective, it matters that some who bought very cheap would put unecessary pressure on the price and the whole point of returning those tokens to poor guys who did not read the notices and sold at very cheap price, would be lost.
One of the ways would be to refund those who did not touch their coins after the bridge was taken down, but it would be unfair on those who bought cheap zennies with intent to make arbitrage gain.
1 Like
As said above, the additional supply injected would be minimal - less than three months of inflation I reckon. On this we don’t even know how much will be kept / sold and how much will be effectively claimed. So, probably less.
It also can be said that bringing back possible valuable contributors is very good mid & long term.
2 Likes
It seems reasonable to refund those who did not touch their coins before the bridge went down, as they were not aware of what was happening. All the trade that went after the brigde went down is just sponsoring those who want to make extra gains at almost no cost, which is not benefiting the network.
The guys who bought it at fair price, I think should be able to get them back.
Arb people that want to invest a fraction of the cost and make huge gains, no point of paying them. They were aware of the bridge going down, they moved their coins in time and bought of those that were late trying to make extra gains. Yes they would loose their invested money, but arb is risky.
Surely no one that was aware of the bridge going down and their tokens being lost would leave them on bsc, only those who were not informed about it for some reason like not following the project closely.
I think that it is not the duty of the network to make holders whole that arent responsible enough to track their investments and take the necessary steps if needed.
I am at max for reopening the bridge, this way the whole network would profit from a growing liq pool and we would have an alternative to excessive swap fees on ether.
2 Likes
Just reopening the bridge is the simplest way no?
The simplest way is to NOT refund. They had plenty of time to bridge their tokens back to syrius.
I think there’s only one approach which makes sense – make them whole.
We are struggling to get new members, and the last thing we need is more FUD. Making them whole will be something those members really appreciate, we can view it as an easy way to grow/maintain our membership and to promote a positive reputation as caring about our members.
It’s easy to blame them for not being responsible and burn them. There is some justification for being like this. I just think it’s smarter from a membership growth, PR perspective as well as cultural to be more lenient, especially given the dubious communication back then before we were community-run.
Even the ETH wZNN should come with a disclaimer/warning btw. True Bitcoiners don’t wrap their BTC and neither do true aliens. Regardless of probability we should warn about the risk of hacks or migrations and remind people to keep an eye on their investment. No other project bothers to be so nice, but we should create trends not follow them. My 2 cents.
4 Likes