How do you propose to fix this with the early investors? By just assigning a value after the initial lockdrop adversely affects the tokens you sent us. Now our “opportunity” tokens are much more costly.
“value” is the key of the redemination. The reason we issued a lot is that so many people than we expected (more than 10 times) joined our 2nd lockdrop. We have done the1st lockdrop and ETH lockdrop participants could get ETH Value×0.5×bonus rate tokens. And at the 2nd lockdrop, we used the following formula, ETH Value×0.4×bonus.
Hmmmm, I don’t understand…Again redemination doesn’t hurt investors at all. So, I don’t know why you are criticizing.
If you think redenomination affects investors, please prove by using math.
2 Likes
I have been an investor for quite so time and i am a believer in the project so please do not see this as FUD. These are real questions that i have. From your response a formula of ETH valuex0.4xbonus(the amount of time ETH is locked) was used to find the total sum of the PLM that was issued correct? No one is doubting your math on how you came up with the token distribution and I do not understand why you would think that it was. There are many examples in this thread were people are actually given you from their prospective how a drastic redenomination would affect them. The issue is why no limit was placed on the second lockdrop which is causing this very drastic 1000 to 1 redenomination.
Earlier i even proposed a plan to maybe meet them halfway and reward them for being early investors. If you have anything planned along these lines, please post it.
I agree token redenomination will be good, it must be somewhere between 100 million to 1 billion, considering the different usabilities for PLM token and the role of Plasm in Polkadot and its potential. My suggestion is to divide by 100 or by 10, which shouldn´t harm too much those who locked ETH for a long time, which is my case also.
4 Likes
Regarding the mathematical proof of redenomination:
currently 32.5% of the tokens are issued for lockdrop 1 and 2, or around 13 billion (13,453,096,612) tokens. The treasury / administration part represents 35% around 14 billion tokens and the parachain auction part 32.5% around 13 billion also.
Or 40 billion tokens (41 394 143 421, 538461538)… a proposal is made to divide the supply by 1000 which brings the number of tokens down to 40million.
It was mentioned above that the team expects an estimated token value of between 20cts and 1.
if my calculations are correct with a value of 0.5 dollars with a supply of 40 million tokens, the overall capitalization of the tokens will be equal to 20 million dollars …
the question that arises here…. what is 20million dollars?
For lockdrops 1 and 2 around 154,000 eth were blocked for an average value of 370 per eth in September or 56,993,394 and currently with an average value of 1,200 per eth or 184,843,440.
The estimated 20million is supposed to correspond to the rental of eth for x period …
if all eths were blocked for the maximum 2 year period it would equate to about 11% of current value, which doesn’t seem like much given the current returns on other projects.
But that in no way removes the value of the project in itself.
If we add to that the parachain auction part, essential for the proper functioning of the project, i.e. about 10 million dowries or about 160,000,000 dollars, that makes us
a lot of enthusiasm for this project with ultimately little in return.
Also and from a more practical point of view, for the use of the token in the project, and for its price to be stable around $ 1, wouldn’t it be more reasonable to think of things in relation to other projects?
With a supply of around 410,000,000 tokens for an equivalent capitalization?
Since the dowry and the eth have not yet really priced …
it is all about questioning, not criticizing or even suggestions …
nothing to say about the progress of the project and the team;)
2 Likes
I agree redenomination. and I think 1 billion that is same as DOT supply is good for investor because it will be easy to make sense portfolio balance including both DOT and PLM.
Thank you for taking the time to show us your work, but my only concern is that about less than 7% of ETH locked was at 1000. The largest was 100 days at a little more than 50%. So how would these undated numbers affect you findings?
I don’t understand your point.
I agree with @sota
The only important thing is Plasm market cap. If you have Y PLM pre-denomination (with a price = Plasm market cap / Plasm supply), then after redenomination, you will have Y/100 PLM for example (with a price = Plasm market cap / (Plasm supply / 100)).
If you will have x100 lower amount of PLM, also the total supply will be x100 lower than before. So the price will be x100 higher than before.
With redenomination, no one will loss money… 
Eventually, we can discuss about the psychological effect that a low price can have, compared to a high price. many people seeing a low price feel attracted, without realizing that in reality the market capitalization is the same!
1 Like
He is completely misunderstanding the concept. And thank you for modifying his misunderstanding.
5 Likes
I believe this is the real problem. We have on one side the “team” that see it as a simple “percentage” situation under which as long as the “percentage” does not change everything is ok and you must have some sort of dyscognitive ailment of you do not agree with them. This is kind of funny coming from people that “don’t understand your point” whenever one is being made that does not fall inline with their narrative. On the other side we have early backers that see a redenomination HAS to happen. No one has said it should not, but the severity of the redenomination is what is being questioned. The price per individual token is the concern. Just because my “percentage” of the supply has not changed the “cost” per token has. The same math that increases my token “value” also increases the amount that was “spent” on each. Let’s say a farmer wants to sell 10% of his 10,000 eggs for $10. This would be a good deal because you got 1,000 eggs for 10 so every egg's individual cost was .01. Now later this same farmer says that he now only has 10 eggs and not the 10,000. Now the cost for the individual egg has gone up from $.01 to $10, your 1,000 eggs is now 1 egg, BUT your 10% of the total issued remains. Yes you still have your initial 10% but now that individual egg costs $10. From the perspective of the buyer, it is I paid $10 for 1 egg. You can try to explain this however you want but saying its a “psychological effect” is too much. Yes the “value” will have grown expediently which is a good thing, but so has the individual cost per. Oh and before you start with that old tale of these being “free tokens” stop, because IF they were actually “free” we would not have had to “loan” ETH to get them and we would not be having this conversation.
2 Likes
I’m not from the team, and it is very clear that you do not understand what you are talking about.
Your analogy is an absolute disaster.
3 Likes
If I said anything that you believe to be incorrect, please present anything to support your belief. Just saying “you don’t understand” without providing anything in support is not helpful. Where in my overly simplistic analogy did I provide incorrect information? If you can provide a better one, please do.
2 Likes
One thing that might help you understand better is that eggs have a global marketplace and as long as there are chickens, have an infinite supply. PLM is PLM, and noone else is selling it.
So a more accurate analogy would be to substitute “Unobtanium” for eggs in your metaphor then at least you’re getting closer to understanding.
2 Likes
impossible to find a compromise or a consent if you make the nuance, if each one expresses a different element of the same problematic …
- the number of tokens
- the optimal value / value for its use
- the margin of progression on the evolution of its price
- the medium and long-term vision of the team …
the team has expressed their wish for a price of the token between 0.5 and 1 dollars, if I start from this element, for 40,000,000 of tokens it comes down to a total value between 20,000,000 and 40,000,000 dollars of capitalization / valuation.
what would be the ideal value, for the use of the token, both for the psychological side of the users, as for the people who will speculate on it?
at 5 dollars a token is it more attractive than at 0.5 dollars (when buying)?
As for the real value, it depends on the work of the communication team, on partnerships and above all on massive use … and this is what I am intervening in here …
concerning the margin of progression of the token, I will not go back to the psychological levels, but if we take the example of the ksm and the dowry, we will note a notable difference in valuation level and in my opinion it is because of a number of token and their respective valuation.
I would just like to know the medium term vision of the team and the evolution of the price with possibly practical cases, as far as possible …
in conclusion, with the arrival of shiden, some investors should be happy …
but it could also give the opportunity to test a difference in metrics between the two projects
cordially
3 Likes
there are 2 lockdrops …
1 Like
Wait so since i used eggs in my analogy and not something that i thought up it negates everything? Again what was it that i said that was incorrect?
1 Like
Yes there was 2 lockdrops.
1 Like
Yes pretty much. Because one has an infinite supply and very common local valuation which you then assigned to dollars. This effectively negates everything of use in your analogy for the context of this discussion.
Using something of limited value with no known value improves your analogy significantly, and might help you understand better.
Ok if it helps, substitute "coocoopichu " where you see the word egg. PLM is not a store of value token. It is needed for the day to day operations of the network. Unless they change the tokenomics it will always get burned so it will always be minted. Also i was not looking at a validation of price but more about how the percentage was not changed in relation to what was actually spent which in turn gave its initial value. We can go apples or oranges all day but it will never change the math and maybe this will help you better to understand the entire process as i see it.
Ha. I would agree here.
" I’m not from the team, and it is very clear that you do not understand what you are talking about.
Your analogy is an absolute disaster."