Let's mint the remaining 250m $Ease

[Harry_easeDeFi]

I would like to discuss the minting of the remaining 250m $Ease.

Background:

• The original $Armor token was minted all at once, 1 billion tokens was the max supply.
• Late 2021, 250m of those were sent to the burn address (0x…dead), so 750m remained unburnt.
• This didn’t do much with regards to the token price, likely because these tokens weren’t part of the circulating supply to begin with.

Cue $Ease

• Late summer 2022 the $Ease token was launched and minted.
• To make the swap from Armor easiest max supply was also capped at 1 billion.
• To emulate the 750m remaining $Armor tokens, the decision was made to start with minting 750m tokens.
• Most of these are in the swapping contract and under control of the DAO, i.e. they can’t be circulated/spent without a DAO vote.
• The remaining 250m can be minted, if the DAO decides so.
• If so, these tokens will also remain under the control of the DAO.

So far, so good.

• One of the most important issues for a project and its token nowadays is to get listed on Coingecko.
• The CG team was great and quickly added us.
• However, they decided to add a warning:
  
  
• Technically, this is correct, as explained above, as the DAO is now the sole Smart Contract owner, but the extra minting is limited to the 250m. After these are minted (by DAO vote only), no more can ever be minted.
• We explained this a few times in detail to the CG team. And though they did add the details in the small print info, the warning remained, without any details.
  
  

It turns out that this warning is confusing investors and chasing some away. Several haven’t swapped their $Armor to $Ease yet because of it.
CEXes also have been hesitant to swap because of it (we’re discussing this regularly with Gate and MECX).

So my proposal is to mint the remaining 250m tokens:

• Then no more tokens can ever be minted after that.
• The warning should disappear after the following update.
• There is no practical difference, as currently the DAO controls the minting (or not) and the DAO will control the resulting tokens anyway.

But it should bring more clarity to prospective and current investors and token holders.

[angurius.eth]

I want to express my new opinion on the matter. Originally I had posted my worries about the re-mint of the burned tokens but after reading about the notification on coinGecko and user concernes I belive the remint might be our best option.

This was my original post regarding the re-mint. I still think these points are valid.(Chris_Armor had reposted my opinion as my original thread was on discord)(I am not speaking for Chris as I do not know his views on this)

@Chris_Armor

Thanks for reaching out and asking for our opinion. I’m going to break down my answer in order to address the 3 points you brought up in the forum.

• Just because the token burn did not affect the price of the token does not mean a remint will not. I am also of the idea that if you take an action as drastic as burning 1/4th or your total supply you should stick with it. It also sends the wrong message to potential investors and could be seen as the team flip flopping on it’s decisions.
• The second point is the only one I could get behind. If the team is strapped for cash and needs funds I could see this as a possible means for funding. Although I would like to refer to my first point as my reasoning to not take that action.
• I think it’s silly to say that minting directly to the DAO treasury would not effect circulating supply. Sure in the moment it won’t but the whole point of having a treasury is that it’s the organizations source of funds. To be able to use those funds would mean spending it, therefore the circulating supply is affected. Also since a large chunk of the voting power is in the hands of team members, it gives the team the ability to use the funds as they please.

Overall I think it’s a pretty bad idea. I can’t say I’m good with having my shares diluted unless for the reasons I stated in the second point. Thank you for listening. Regardless I’ll still be an investor. Thanks for building

Considering that the team is pushing for the re-mint of the coins in an effort to incite potential investors into trusting the DAO I believe it might be our best option. In an effort to not feel like my shares are getting diluted, I would love to see the new 250 mil tokens being distributed to holders based on their current gvEase/vArmor holdings. If the team deems that they need more control over the ease allocation then I would be fine with only part of the new tokens being distributed to current holders although the idea of getting diluted rubs me the wrong way. If the re-mint is only to relax prospective ease buyers and current vArmor hoders that don’t trust the new contract then I think the newly minted coins should be distributed to the current community.

If the DAO has concerns over token dumps related to the airdrop I would place the new tokens under a distribution/vesting lock so that users cannot extract their ease before a certain date without possible withdrawal fees in order to incentivize lock ups. Other ideas would be having the option to choose the vesting time of the newly minted tokens in order to distribute the unlocks over a longer period of time as to avoid a single unlock time for all users as that could tank the price.

My approach might be greedy to some as I would like free tokens. I believe it is fair that the community that might have bought or continued holding armor because of the 25% supply burn should be rewarded for their commitment to the project after such a drastic price drop. If the DAO keeps the whole 250 mil tokens I will not be happy as I would feel cheated.

TLDR: Re-mint if the tokens are distributed to current vArmor/gvEase holders as to not dilute positions and reward long time holders.

[xaumana]

Hey Angurius! Nice to see you on the forum As always, thank you for expressing your opinion, it’s greatly appreciated!

My original position about the remint was supportive: Reminting the 250MM Burned $ARMOR Tokens into $EASE Max Supply - #7 by xaumana

I still view the matter from this angle.

The original Burn Proposal was intended to achieve the following:

@Chris_Armor

After discussion on the forums1, it is proposed to do a single burn, totaling 250MM tokens in the Armor Treasury. The belief is that this will:

1. Improve tokenomcis
2. Be used as a marketing tool to advertise the protocol
3. Improve peace of mind for current users

Time showed that, since these tokens were not burned from the Circulating Supply, but from the Treasury, it didn’t improve tokenomics at all. The event looked good on paper, but these optics were either badly positioned in terms of marketing, or they simply weren’t picked up by the foreign audience.
It did, however, provide peace of mind to our native audience.

I expect that the Remint will have the reverse effects:

• I suppose it won’t have an effect on the $Ease tokenomics;
• I expect it won’t create any negative optics effect - it will actually fix the CoinGecko optics;
• I expect it will negatively affect the peace of mind of our current adopters.

But I think the 250MM tokens should be reminted outside of the Circulating Supply, otherwise it will have an actual diluting effect on the current token economy.

I should point out that Adam’s (Official Telegram) viewpoint is different. He expressed the idea of permanently holding tokens forever. In this sense, all tokens currently in Treasury may be considered to be “dilution potential” yet to be released in the Circulating Supply. Thus, the Remint could be viewed as an increase of the dilution potential (although capped)… meaning, we include the function of time.

I agree with Adam, that Reminting those tokens to a locked address, making sure they’ll never be used, achieves the goal in the clearest way:

• Locked address ensures tokens will never be used, so any sense of dilution is dispersed
• It will clear the CoinGecko optics

I’m willing to support that idea.

However, it must be noted, reminting to a locked address sacrifices flexibility.

Summary

• I support the idea of reminting the tokens to clear the CoinGecko optics.
• I think it’s worth discussing reminting to a locked address.

[angurius.eth]

Sure I think that could work. The one issue I have is that even if you remit the 250mil and put them in a locked address it will still show up on coingecko that there are 1 bil coins. This would make the optics less enticing as the total supply will be 1billion instead of 750 million. Sure coin gecko will not have the warning(which is bad obviously) but it will still say that there are a total of 1 bil tokens even if there are actually only 750 mil. Is there not a way we can remint and burn the tokens again in order to clear the coingecko optics without having the total number of coins be 1 billion?

[Harry_easeDeFi]

Thanks for your comments guys. Just a clarification as terminology is a bit unclear.

Current circulating supply (roughly 250m) means all current holders, including treasury.

The rest of the tokens is locked into the DAO contract, and can only be added to circulating supply (for whatever reason, could be staking rewards, investors, airdrop, marketing, burn etc) after a positive DAO vote.

The 250m that still can be minted is just one step (DAO vote) away from being in that same contract. So, the DAO needs to vote and approve the minting, but that doesn’t mean the 250m will be added to the circulating supply and it also won’t be added to the treasury.

It will be added to the rest that is under the control of the DAO.

So minting them won’t change anything as max supply will stay the same, circulating supply will stay the same as well. The only difference is that currently 250m tokens can still be minted, afterwards no more can be minted. But max & circulating supply stay the same.

[angurius.eth]

I get what you are saying about the circulating supply being the same, even after the re mint. The idea that that would not affect the inherit value of the coin is quite silly to me.

I understand they are not circulating so it does not currently create sell pressure but the reality still stands that there will be more coins regardless of who owns them. The possible use cases ( staking rewards, investors, airdrop, marketing, burn) all apart from the burn option, would inherently effect the price in a negative manner. This does not mean that there will be sell pressure, I’m just saying that it means there will most likely be sell pressure related to these 250 mill tokens at some point in the future. So unless the DAO decides to airdrop current holders more ease we are essentially getting diluted. Not that its a horrid situation, but I’m baffled that people might see it as something that does not effect the coin just because it will not be in circulation(initially).

I do still believe we should re-mint the coins as I want the disclaimer to be removed from coin gecko. But we should have a general idea of what the DAO can do with the coins after the re-mint.