New $ease token mint and swap: $Armor: $ease: 1:10?

Ideas
1

Dear community,

The team is happy to announce that we are getting very close to launching the $ease token, it should happen in the next few weeks!

As you will know, the $ease token will replace the $Armor token and will be the last part of the rebranding process.

The team has thought about how many $ease tokens we should mint, which will also determine the swap ratio of $Armor → $ease.

When the $Armor token was launched, in January 2021, a Billion (1,000,000,000) were minted. The most straightforward would therefore be to mint 1 Billion $ease as well and swap 1:1.

However, for a few reasons the team proposes a different token amount and swap ratio: 10 Billion $ease, which would mean a swap ratio of 1 $Armor → 10 $Ease (so the % stay the same for all token holders, i.e. 1% of $Armor tokens → 1% of $ease tokens).

  • First of all, as $ease Uninsurance is a giant step forward from the $Armor product suite, the team feels that it’s important that we break away from the same mould, and do not mint the exact same amount of tokens.
  • As $ease will have more utility, we expect more demand.
  • Crypto investors are prone to Unit Bias.

Unit bias is the fact that lower priced assets seem to be valued higher than an equivalent fraction of a higher priced one. Many investors check the price of one Unit.

For example: many crypto investors flocked to Shiba and Doge “as they were cheaper than BTC and ETH”! See a detailed explanation of Unit Bias in the ease Crypto and DeFi Glossary.

Economically this doesn’t make sense, as $100 worth of $Doge is worth exactly the same as $100 worth of BTC, but still 1168 Doge sounds a lot more than 0.004174518 BTC…

So, that’s why every 1 USD worth of $Armor will have the same value as 1 USD worth of $ease, irrespective of the swap rate. For example, if the proposed 10 billion $ease are minted, every $Armor will get swapped for 10 $ease as the $ease supply will be 10 times larger.

We welcome your input and feedback, so we can finalize the token launch and -swap!

1 Like
2

I see only positives in this move. Vouching for it!

3

Ditto!! I’m all for this. Excited for the team and community!!!

4

Hey all!

Appreciate everyones thoughtful input so far.

With regards to the the $Armor to $ease swap ratio, I’m a bit undecided. Mainly, I think a 1:10 split at Armor’s current price action wouldn’t significantly affect unit bias for most consumers and could even lead to some unintended image changes for the Ease community.

To start, since $Armor currently trades at prices that are already best denominated at tenths of cents in USD, I think the swap ratio may not have much of a demonstrable difference with regards to unit bias. For anyone exchanging in USD, Armor may already feel as psychologically cheap as possible, since denominations in hundredths or thousandths of cents starts to become more intangible and abstract. Since no one is transacting in fractional amounts of $Armor (nor would it be rational to with ETH fees) I think the BTC unit bias analogy is a bit loose and may not apply in the same way.

Overall, I’m worried that while leaning into unit bias could draw in new users, it might not bring significant unit bias benefits and could even unintentionally brand $ease as a “shitcoin” (like Shiba or Doge) - something to hold onto for easy price action, but maybe not something to hold or accumulate in a rational portfolio.

Thus, I’m not entirely persuaded that the split is consistent with brand of $ease, which emphasizes security, trustworthiness, risk mitigation, etc… A split to encourage buyers to “ape in” on the premise of unit bias seems limited and may work against long term goals down the road. On the other hand, capital inflow is always needed and welcome, and could certainly be more important than any of these speculative image concerns.

If the team has any additional data, case studies, or documentation on the idea that are applicable at $ease’s current price point, I think that could be very helpful as the community discusses this strategy! Happy with any direction the team chooses to go in, just playing devil’s advocate for the flip side of the split’s potential branding effect.

5

I would totally agree with that if we had to think in strictly present and near future scale.

But since we have one and only chance to issue the token, after which no changes can be made, we really have to consider this trait in the perspective of the Ease’s future as a whole, hopefully extending many years (at least) from now. This low cost won’t be forever, in fact this market cycle bottom may be the lowest bottom ever for our investments in Ease/Armor.

Any trait we issue the new token with will stay with it till the end (presumably, ofc).

Besides, I view this in combination of the airdrop the Team is planning (idea is in this thread) Being airdropped several $EASE surely doesn’t look so interesting than being airdropped several dozens of $EASE. Bigger number as an airdrop stimulates one to check out what this thing is about.

Imagine that. If you’re being airdropped several $EASE it would be obvious that this thing probably isn’t worth anything (nobody will airdrop you a round number of a token, worth hundreds of $, right?).
But if you are being airdropped triple digits of $EASE, you kinda know it probably is worth less than 1$… but you have to check to have a better idea of the airdrop’s worth. And this check is the reaction every airdrop should be aimed at.

So…

  • with the fact that every trait we issue the token with will stay with it forever, in good and bad market conditions…
  • with the fact the current market conditions for $ARMOR can’t be significantly worse than what they are now…
  • with the consideration of the marketing airdrop in the mix…

I think your logic is sound, but we have to look beyond the present and near term to judge this move.

2 Likes
6

Looking like a shitcoin is definitely a worry we had when we initially thought of this in December, but that was when we floated the idea of really leaning that direction with a 1:1000 swap. I don’t think 10B will really give us that connotation.

Some big tokens with 5-40B supply: celr, cardano, stellar, cronos, hedera, zilliqa, matic, the graph, algorand. I think you only get into shitcoin territory with 100B+ supply.

It definitely doesn’t feel great initially when it’d be $0.001, but I agree with xaumana in that I don’t expect that to continue to be the case and we only have 1 chance to change this for the future.

1 Like
7

FYI a snapshot to vote on this discussion is now live! It will remain open until August 29, 8:13 PM UTC

https://snapshot.org/#/easedao.eth/proposal/0xd190bd56f4be69e4c248b1ef9ae1bde988690674b5dcf8c13de7adb95ef1390b

8

Most members of the team are unsure after new points…we should have added an undecided option but it looks like it may end at No.

EDIT: To add more context on my thoughts here: I do think it would be better for the token in the long-term to have a higher supply, but I have been convinced it could be worse in the short-term with the current price. Usually I favor the long-term but I’m thinking short(er)-term may be a better priority in this case so I’m starting to lean that way.

1 Like
9

Will there be any new exchange listings…? Binance, Kucoin, Coinbase,.etc etc…?

10

Agreed… **************

11

Not likely anytime soon. All of the above only accept tokens if they can earn a lot of trading fees on them, so only new Top 100 coins and some trending meme coins. Even then, they ask a lot of cash in listing fees.

12

The vote has concluded and the results are clearly against a 1:10 split. Even taking the large whale’s vote (not a team member) out of the equation, both the majority of votes, as well as the majority of voters, were against it.

The team could have skewed the vote but decided not to vote, as they were quite happy either way and also did not want to vote against the majority.
So the new $ease token will be minted in the same quantity as the $Armor token and the swap will be 1:1.

Thanks for your participation, comments and voting!

13

To give an asterisk to this, we’re always looking into it and are in talks with different platforms but they usually require a certain amount of trading volume so top priority is making a protocol and token that people use, and with that will come the necessary volume.

14

The unstaked Armor we hold on Metamask,…Will it be swapped over to Ease,…automatically though the wallet once launched…?..

15

No, not automatically. A swap page will be made available at token launch where one will be able to execute the swap.

1 Like
16

what will be the circulating supply., 250m…?

17

circulating supply…? …Ease…250M…?—

18

Since it’s a token swap, all metrics remain the same. The current $ARMOR / $vARMOR circulating supply will be swapped by the individuals themselves for $EASE. The Team will swap $ARMOR liquidities with $EASE, as well as the Treasury. So everything remains the same.

The matter with the 250MM Treasury reminting has been settled, for now. You can read more here: Reminting the 250MM Burned $ARMOR Tokens into $EASE Max Supply - #13 by Harry_easeDeFi

20

what is the APR% for staking Ease…?..and how often are the rewards issued.?

21

what are the APR% for Ease…?.. & how often are rewards issued…?