Another great post Joel!
Angurius’ posts on Discord made me think too. Two thoughts, actually.
We really need to have more informative and transparent campaign about the whole reminting thing. The OP is too short. Yes - it contains all the relative info and deductions. It gives all essentials, basically, without any redundant data. But the OP also comes from a very thorough and thought-out position, the idea maybe developing and maturing for weeks, before being condensed and expressed in a brief manner.
It created negative reactions. I myself had a negative reaction, but changed my opinion. Other community members also had negative reactions, but changed their opinions. Yet, there are community members who keep their negative opinions.
This could’ve been executed better. We could’ve extrapolated the matter, discussing it openly with all the collateral info and seemingly redundant details and considerations, thus mitigating emotional reactions.
I’m not saying all negative opinions on the matter are only based on emotion. I’m saying the negative reaction was common for everyone and it was avoidable. It was created by sharing too little information (as a quantity, not quality). There are two ways to manipulate someone’s emotional reaction - by sharing too little information, or too much, and we will avoid that in the future.
I can’t agree with Angurius’s opinion about the dilution, however.
The burn did not actually have an effect. It created the potential for a positive effect on price, but that potential never gave birth to the effect.
A remint, basically, will negate the potential for the expected effect on the price (that never came to be).
Metaphorically, it’s like an army that takes a battle position, but then falls back - potential arises, but no factual effect.
Your boss tells you “The company is locking in a great partnerships so everyone will get a bonus this month”. Partnership fails in the last moment, boss tells you “Yeah, sorry about that, it failed, so no bonus for anybody”. Guess what - you will still have your regular salary, as it was before the failed promise.
And hey, I’m also an investor, I was also >90% underwater at the time of the burn. But I’m being honest with myself here and I really can’t call my investment diluted by a remint of a previous burn. It’s just the same.
True - they are suing Musk for backing off from Twitter deal. But that move had its effect on Twitter’s price, and there is your case. The burn had no positive effect on the price. Sure, given enough time, so a bigger part of the total supply enters in circulation, it may have had. But we never got there.
That’s why I think there’s no case for the dilution thesis.
I guess if investment decisions were made based on the news of the burn, one may say “I’ve been misled on this matter” and he/she would have a case then.
I guess, that’s why we vote on it. Because I too made a number of investments after the burn event. But given the fact the burn never had enough time to have an effect on the price, my investments aren’t really diluted. Only my expectations as an investor have been damaged on this matter.
But I will vote for the remint, because I have much bigger interest in fuller treasury and smoother swap to $EASE, pursuing the new usecases from here on, and much smaller interest in sending impeccable messages to investors. Real world is far from impeccable, it’s actually brutal and I don’t see any reputation damage for Ease if the bun is reminted.