BZRX Token Migration and Split

bZx Improvement Proposals
#1

Summary

As part of the rebrand, bZx is migrating the BZRX token to a new contract. Passage of this proposal approves all of the following updates to the BZRX token contract.

  • New ticker symbol to match the rebrand token name and ticker symbol.
  • Updating token contract to enable the ability for DAO vote to mint/burn
  • Cheaper gas
  • Ability to increase total token supply and perform a 10:1 token split. (to benefit from unit bias)

Proposal Details

The migration of BZRX to a new token contract will consist of a corresponding increase in the total token supply in the amount of a 1:10 split. This ratio implies that for every 1 BZRX, there will be 10 of the new tokens given.

This split will increase the supply of BZRX and lead to a decrease in the price per unit. The token itself will introduce a new ticker, name, and contract functionalities. These functionalities will enable mint and burn which will be wholly controlled by the DAO, such that the future token economic functions can be modified as necessary through a DAO proposal in order to enable burn and/or mint of new tokens if the need arises. This change will allow for greater control by the DAO of metrics such as tokenomics.

2 Likes
#2

Good to migrate completely and let the old pricechart be forgotten.

#3

i agree with this proposal

#4

Proposal seems great - I support it.

Perhaps worth emphasizing that this particular proposal does NOT include any token inflation or addition to the supply.

We will go from 1 billion to 10 billion tokens, but every BZRX will receive 10 of the new tokens and we end up in exactly the same place (except the price of each individual token will be lower - hence the unit bias thing).

#5

That’s fine idea as long as coingecko/cmc/binance etc. are also informed way before the rebrand token launch, in order for them to prepare their listings etc.

#7

Sounds great! Curious how converting vBZRX will work. Can they be swapped directly from the staking contract without “unstaking”?

#8

vBZRX will not be converted due to technical limitations but as the BZRX vests, it will be available for conversion.

#9

That’s not good, because it adds another conversion which might cost depending on gas 10 to 100$.

#10

One conversion each time you want to claim !
No vOoki :relieved:

#11

So no time limit for conversion or this is very specific for vbzrx?

#12

there will be no time limit because of the vBZRX situation

#13

It feels farcical to me that tokenholders / future DAO members are being asked to approve a ticker symbol to match a brand we’ve never seen before. For all we know, the new ticker symbol could be BTC and we would be none the wiser. It’s not clear to me what benefit the team sees to keeping rebrand details so tightly under wraps unless to generate an announcement pump for exit liquidity, and the talk about unit bias doesn’t help with this perception.

I know I’ve been a somewhat acerbic member of this community and I do regret that somewhat. I know we’ve all been frustrated to see bZx lose traction while other protocols flourish, and to me the obsessive recent focus on tokenomics games has been to the detriment of the good ideas at the heart of this project.

I will vote no unless/until the proposed new token contract is deployed on mainnet with ample opportunity for community review.

1 Like
#14

The protocol is already controlled wholly by the DAO and by token holders. This proposal is simply for migration to the new token. At the time of the proposal going for a vote, it will require the contracts to have been deployed beforehand. This is in no way an exit liquidity event and these changes are being proposed for improvement of the protocol. For the changes to be enacted the DAO has to vote to accept it also. These proposals are also additive to other initiatives and are not detracting from the work occurring on other fronts by the developers funded by the DAO.

#15

Hey when Is the rebranding
Me and my gang have been Eger le waiting for months :blush:

#16

I agree with proposal

#17

Totally agree on that :love_you_gesture:t2::love_you_gesture:t2::love_you_gesture:t2: