I think most BZRX holders are also BGOV or/and PGOV holders…
came here to say this
After further discussion, it seems a higher price point is desired for the buyout. The price point that seems to have the most support on both sides is 19:1 for GOV token to BZRX and this applies for both PGOV and BGOV. This requires roughly 21 million BZRX to be minted which is more than initially allotted but is reasonable. PGOV and BGOV are priced the same since polygon has generally more activity and higher TVL than bsc deployment does so it justifies the prices to be the same
And this pushed the pgov price by 50%, now:
PGOV price: 0.00778 USD
i will support this!
Yes, it sounds fair.
Two months ago, this was dismissed as there were more pressing matters to attend to. Now, it’s back again, and I have the feeling this has to do with the fact that multiple tokens are not beneficial for the rebrand, and it is now delaying the launch of the rebrand.
When rebrand will launch, a lot of fresh traffic will flock to the platforms, and they will generate huge amount of traffic and revenue. If the last few months are any indication of the future, most traffic will end up on Polygon, benefitting from the low transfer fees. This means most revenue will end up in the PGOV holder wallets, which as a BZRX holder, is something to be slightly jealous of. Of course, BZRX holders are getting 15% of the revenue, but still…this will not look good for the new (rebranded) bzrx token and will mainly upset the newcomers.
It is therefore in our best interest to quickly regain the sister platforms before the rebrand pushes the revenue up and with that the price of B/PGOV will get too high, and we won’t be able to, having to deal with this dreadful multiple token system forever, with seperate DAOs, treasuries, etc., which isn’t very efficient.
So the time to do it is NOW, but realise we will need to hold a minimum of 3 votes:
- Vote by the BZRX DAO what they want to offer to the B/PGOV holders
- Vote by the PGOV DAO if they accept the buy-out offer
- Vote by the BGOV if the accept the buy-out offer
Reading the above, I agree that we should not think in premiums in USD, but use a fixed ratio of BZRX-B/PGOV in order to avoid the gaming. Nobody likes to have a vote passed, and then suddenly see BGOV at an all time high…
Not sure why it would delay the rebrand much?
Sorry about that, the message was sent before I was finished
The snapshot votes can be done soon but the on-chain votes for minting and the swaps will be with the new token so around the time of rebrand. It seems to have community consensus overall so will likely move to snapshot vote and see where it goes from there. If the PGOV and BGOV DAOs vote for it along with BZX dao on snapshot then it will require an on-chain vote on bZx dao and will be finalized. the on-chain vote will be for moving the funds.
And what will happen with the burn mechanism that we have now for both p/bgov? Can we use the same mechanism to burn the newly minted tokens?
yes it will be burned as aboves statement
Hi Audax, I’m not sure to understand very well… with the buyout, fees of the polychain will goes to bzrx holder. I’m pretty sure that pgov stakers and bzrx stakers are the same people. Don’t you think?
Édit : and bzrx whales are pgov whales « et vice versa »
Exactly, just look at the ibzrx locked in the pgov farming.
Currently, fees of polygon/bsc go for 15% to iBZRX stakers on polygon/bsc, but after a successful buyout, it’ll be 100% and pbgov will no longer have any purpose. The idea is that in the future, all revenue could be consolidated and you’ll only need to stake the main token in 1 place.
Personally I haven’t done any on-chain analysis so I can’t confirm that, but we need to be careful not to make any assumptions what they will vote for.
Just because they’re big holders on both bpgov and bzrx, doesn’t automatically mean they will fully support bzrx (or viceversa).
I’ve been talking with some people that hold both, and they all believe that bpgov can grow much more than bzrx (that’s why they’re holding it).
much lower (and (almost) fully circulated) supply of only 250mln pbgov (vs 1 bln bzrx that still is vesting for a few years)
lower price than bzrx
higher revenue than bzrx
Below is an example, not price predictions of any kind
The idea is that when the rebrand comes, and bzrx will do 2x, they expect pgov to do even 10x (again, these are random numbers just as an example).
But, if we consolidate, bzrx can do 3x as the rebrand will be more effective, but the pbgov holders will miss out on their 10x. They might be happier with a 2x on their bzrx bag, and a 10x on their pbgov bag, than a 3x on their new consolidated bag.
They tell me 1:19 is too low, only 1:10 is possible for some, others want even more but we only need to focus to get 51%.
If rebrand starts and trading volume will increase and prices of those tokens will pump, we won’t be able to convince/pay them off anymore, it’ll be too late.
Therefore, we should make them a very good offer before the rebrand starts and 1:10 should be a minimum to regain control of the 2 lowfee chains that will help a lot with the onboarding of the new people (BSC still has a lot of new guys that can spread the hype and polygon is very fast and cheap, we need both to showcase the new protocol).
With a new token and a new mint, and a rebrand coming right afterwards, I don’t think it’ll have much effect on the price. Let’s put it up for a vote!
I agree with 1:10 being a minimum. To be honest anything above 1:10 is robbery! Don’t sell your gov tokens too cheap people!
Yes I think it’s too low, but from bzrx holders point of view, it is logical to try to get it as cheap as possible.
If it’s not going through, we can always try 1:10 ratio.
It’s a buyout, not a bailout.
How precisely is it worth an extra 12M BZRX (that isn’t speculation.)? We’re talking about real money here, not “well, we think it’ll be HUGE so you should pay a better price.”
Voting no seems especially risky considering that if it fails to pass, you’ll likely end up operating under the BZRX brand on BSC, while a portion of the revenue continues to be funneled to OOKI.
If you’re confident that BZRX on BSC will outgrow OOKI (lol) then have at it. It’s pretty easy to remove a dropdown menu option from the UI.
I´m holding all three tokens in non-trivial amounts and specifically registered for this discussion because I see a few issues here.
The biggest issue is the apparent disregard of GOV-only and GOV-heavy investors that the initial proposal shows. Those people, and I´m including myself here, have bought these “child tokens” with additional capital (not just “free money” via farming) trusting the words of the devs to actively develop those projects in accordance with BZRX, like an extension. The original argumentation was, these tokens are needed to make economic incentives work across chains. Fine, but then stand by your word to work in the best interest of the whole ecosystem and treat those investors with respect.
Proposing an incredible low-ball offer for the chains that actually have better UX than the ETH powered bzrx version is absurd and straight out hostile. This is not just your pet project anymore with which you can do whatever you want. You have investors / community and are responsible, so act like it.
Speaking of UX… Unless you are a huge whale, using fulcrum on ETH is financial suicide thanks to gas cost. Hence, both GOV chains´ volumes will inevitably supersede ETH fulcrum by many multiples over time. Yes,I´m aware of Arbitrum but both, Matic and BNB, have grown DeFi ecosystems that are not to be underestimated. This must be seriously considered in the takeover proposal.
This is like saying BTC is dying because numba didn´t go up for a month. If you consider 600m daily trading volume a dying project then maybe you should go short sell coinbase. Nuts.
A 10/1 GOV/BZRX split is still a super bargain for the bzrx DAO. If my calculation is right, it would take roughly 33m BZRX to be minted (excluding treasury, burns and not-yet-issued GOV tokens), increasing the ciculating supply by 11% and the total supply by 3.2%. In exchange, getting 100% of the fees of the two most popular high-throughput chains is a steal. Personally I´m in favor of a lower ratio.
The vote should have options between 20 GOV / 1 BZRX all the way to 1/1 ratios and the result would be the average of the votes instead of highest vote wins. This way a continuum of opinions can be fairly condensed and reflects the proposal that will most likely be accepted by the GOV holders. After all, many of them are part of the BZRX DAO as well so they already make their voice heard in the first round.