I agree with point # 1 and point # 3
1 Like
I don’t think there is a right answer here. We can reference projects and bring in examples, though for every project that justifies an inverse split, we can find just as many that merit leaving it at the same ratio.
Possibly we should work to identify three (3) different pursuits, and then do a vote.
One would be to keep it the same, and then create two other proposed ratios & this would allow us (token holders) to choose one of the three pursuits.
Thoughts?
I am okay with 1:1 or 10:1. Maybe we vote on 10:1 or less or 100:1 or more first. Binary outcome. Then we can further discuss the pros and cons of 1:1 or 10:1 (or 100:1 or 1000:1) and vote on that.
1 Like
Agree that there is no right answer but rather an approach that may perhaps have more favourable outcomes. I was initially thinking 1:1 but after reading Max’s original post, point 3 is valid and worth considering and I now favour the 10:1
Great examples/discussion from everyone.
2 Likes
In general, the token has to be on the same network as the project. So a token on Ethereum would control Ethereum related smart contracts like the NFT lending and the money market.
Background. For now, the HiFi devs are using snapshot (off chain voting) to allow tokens on Ethereum to dictate and influence how the lending protocol will work on Polygon. You cant be a true DAO and push code updates with snapshot, so eventually the token has to be on the same chain as the stuff you want to control.
There are teams working on solving the above issue where you can have a token on Gnosis Chain (Formerly xDAI) and have it push code updates on chain on Gnosis Chain and Ethereum, but they are breaking new ground here and unknown as to how safe and reliable that type of messaging system is. I’d assume thats the long term goal of every project on Ethereum to be able to deploy to multiple chains and then have code updates pushed that impact all other chains (when you want them to). If we get to the end game described above, then it doesnt really matter if the token is sitting on optimism, arbitrum or polygon because it has the ability to communicate to all the other chains right where its at. If thats the case, then i’d be more inclined to go with a 1:1 swap or 10:1 swap because the gas fees for swapping on chain and withdrawing are within an acceptable range of $0.01 to $3 and that enables all users regardless of networth to buy and participate in HiFi’s governance.
3 Likes
Such a hot discussion.
Seems to be many good points regarding high vs low ratios.
In my opinion, I feel this should end up as finding a good balance, which seems to be 100:1.
That’s a way to reach the most positive outcomes, while minimizing the potential downsides.
“…going where the users are” has always been in the spirit of Hifi.
That makes me think that the swap ratio should be a reasonable and balanced response, covering the most people’s needs and ideas. We should as such, prevent the extremes (1:1 vs 1000:1).
1 Like
First of all, let’s think about the worst. I think the worst thing is not to change the ratio. Hi-Fi is currently attempting a new NFT lending, which is a completely new market. A new inflow is needed, and a lot of attention is needed for a lot of attention is needed.
The increase in the exchange rate, along with FOMO, brings attention to the cryptocurrency market.
In the previous example, we can consider the recent change in the exchange rate of GXC coins and the past change in the exchange rate of PUNDi X.
The coins were mentioned and received the most attention in the cryptocurrency market within the period.
After the FOMO period, people will think about the new functions of HIFI and the future and become new holders.
You don’t have to be afraid of FOMO.
FOMO has historically been essential to attract attention in all markets, and new evaluations are made after rapid growth.
The most important thing for Hi-Fi now is to attract attention.
If you don’t do anything, you’ll be forgotten. Hundreds of new coins appear a day in the cryptocurrency market, and hundreds of coins are forgotten.
2 Likes
Let’s think of the second bad case. I think this is to make the replacement ratio 1000:1 or higher. If the exchange rate is too high, I think it will make people hesitate to enter the market after a change in the exchange rate
In fact, I think the overall market capitalization is more important than the price of a coin, but for new entrants, too high a value will be considered a barrier to entry.
Therefore, I support the exchange rate between 1:10 and 1:100.
Refusing to change the exchange rate due to changes in the withdrawal fee of the exchange is an act of giving up a big one for a small one.
After changing the exchange rate, you can ask the exchange to change the withdrawal fee.
Exchange fees incurred within the Hi-Fi ecosystem do not incur per token, but per exchange, so there is no need to consider it.
4 Likes
The token ratio has no meaning to the system. But it makes sense for marketing. Many coins change the exchange rate and become cheaper, such as DOT. Because too expensive tokens are not friendly to many people. Considering that MFT itself is already cheap, I think 0.01-1 is a good growth range. But the ratio remained unchanged and could not attract the attention of the market. So 10 to 1 is acceptable. But 1000 to 1 is too expensive.
3 Likes
After changing the exchange rate, you can ask the exchange to change the withdrawal fee. Exchange fees incurred within the Hi-Fi ecosystem do not incur per token, but per exchange, so there is no need to consider it.
Exchange fees for withdrawal, are typically the cost to withdraw on the network at the moment of the request, plus a flat fee or a percentage of the withdrawal. Since ethereum is the most expensive blockchain network in the world to send tokens, withdrawal fees for MFT are typically $20-$50 using Binance as a real world example.
If a user wanted to withdraw 1 MFT to test voting (test metamask, test a hardware wallet), they would be withdrawing $0.008 MFT and be charged $20 to do so. What I am saying is, if the tokenswap was 1000:1, if a user withdrew 1 HiFi ($80) then the $20 fee is only 25% of the total amount being withdrawn, as opposed to the original scenario where they are charged 2500% in withdrawal fees. Over the time i’ve spent in discord, i’ve seen many users lament the high withdrawal fee based on the amount they are trying to withdraw. Its my belief that these users would not be lamenting the $20 withdrawal fee if the token was worth more.
1 Like
Do we want to see if the Hifi NFT digital collection impacts price, before making a decision on ratio?
3 Likes
Really don’t have much to say on the tokenswap ratio since the higher the ratio, the higher the valuation. But we must also take note of small time investors. I’m typically a small time investor who coincidentally saw the MFT token on Hoo exchange. I’m here today because I read more on the project in which I discovered it’s potential to make grounds like Yearn finance and other projects that are initially unnoticeable at first. I didn’t want to miss out on such a good project again.
1 Like
The lower the ratio, the higher the price.
When the ratio is lowered, by lowering the amount of tokens, the price would go up.
Market cap valuation is the key metric
Ultimately, we should be more concerned with value than price, because upon a change in ratio, the price can move artificially based upon the quantity of tokens in circulation.
3 Likes
After some introspection, 10 MFT to 1 HiFi is now my ideal swap ratio. (yes, i change my mind frequently)
6 Likes
What’s the reasoning behind it?
Going back to the 10:1 ratio to fully embrace unit bias. Below is a quote from discord 6 months ago on the subject.
ratio really makes no diff, although I do think alot of the success from DOGE, XRP and ADA stemmed from the fact that they were in the “Sweet Spot” of $0.01 to $0.99 when they really took off. If we aim to do the same, a 10 MFT for 1 HiFi would be the correct ratio to duplicate that success. Unit bias only matters to retail, doesnt bother institutions/vcs.
3 Likes
A swap ratio based on the market cap would be most fair to me. Imao.
3 Likes
I am in favour of the 10:1 ratio. What sold me was the comment below from Max in an earlier comment as Binance is a key pillar in the overall landscape and potentially losing pairings will not be good long term.
3. We need a smaller token supply, as the current large supply previously led to problems with Binance where the price of our token went too low (due to a combination of low market cap and large supply) which resulted in the delisting of the MFT/BTC and MFT/BNB trading pairs.
4 Likes
I’m also supportive of a 10:1 swap.
5 Likes
I think 10:1 is ideal in the short term and scales with the market in the longer term.
5 Likes