We have 5 phases to launch the full functions. Phase4 is redenomination! I will describe our plan for the redenomination.
Proposal
After the lockdrop, we assume the total supply of PLM will be around 10 billion. (10,000,000,000)
We would like to make 10,000,000,000 PLM to 10,000,000 PLM. The final decision will be made at the pahse4.
Warning: This is a draft and not decided yet. Please do NOT use this number for your safety.
First, PLM is issued based on your opportunity cost. Your formula is wrong because you are using $200K. This is not your opportunity cost.
Second, “Value” is different from “Price”. Through redenomination, the value is the same but the price will be 100-1000 times bigger. In your case, you locked $200K worth ETH and get 9.4M PLM. Let’s assume 1 PLM is $0.001. Through redenomination, your PLM becomes 9,400 PLM. The price of PLM is $1.
Because of the 2 reasons, the redenomination doesn’t hurt your PLM.
I understand perfectly, thanks Sota. I was doing the calculations based on the alpha price of PLM ($0.44). I understand that this will change radically after the second lockdrop because of the success it has had.
Seeing the investment difference between the first and second lockdrop, I deduce that many investors have come in because of the alpha price of PLM, but now you will see that it is not as much as you thought.
That large part of the community may feel hurt by the radical change, and it has all been because of the great success of the second lockdrop. I think this is a major contradiction because the first investors should have an advantage over the people who buy when PLM is listed on the exchanges.
Don’t you think it would be a good idea to make a coin burn instead of a denomination? Or make a 1:10 denomination instead of 1:100?
That way the first investors who are the most confident in the project would have a great advantage over the future investors.
Not to get on the band wagon/hype trains lately but I believe ever since YFI and other low circulating supply coins people tend to think that a lower supply will lead to an eventual much higher price as basic supply/demand of what the market might have access to and overall availability to. Although in hindsight price is directly tied to market cap and supply having a lower supply would allow the market to think there is scarcity of such an asset and therefore jump in to secure there positions. There is another psychological barrier once the underlying value of the asset starts crossing dollar amounts once past $1 and up, I believe it is no coincidence that tokens/coins tend to get up to certain dollar amounts and fail to break such levels for say LINK at $20 or Uniswap at $8. On the contrary, projects like aave who at pennies and is almost up to a dollar because peoples mental barriers seem much easier to persuade in acquisition of a sub <$1 project without giving any thought to mcap and supply. The dynamics is complex and thus must be carefully and tactfully thought through. Given the functionality and technology of PLM both scenarios will likely have no effect on the overall profitability of the project and holders. I have full faith in your decision on either case.
Speaking as one of those participants of the second lockdrop, the “value” that was displayed was one of my deciding factors to do it. The other was the opportunity to get in early on a project that has so much potential. I do understand that redenomination was on the road map but it kind of seems to me IMHO that tokens purposely oversold. I am not saying that they were but from the outside looking in it looks “strange”. At this point it seems like it is more of a “clean-up” measure. I agree wholeheartedly with @dasima if you just wanted to reduce the supply , a coin burn would be MUCH more agreeable instead of a 1:100 redenomination. Looking at it from the view of the four main roles of the token and the first role is STAKING. PLM tokens are expected to be operated at the ratio of 1:1 less tokens means less staking opportunities. If its a “price” issue, a burn would serve the same purpose without affecting staking opportunities.
How exactly does less tokens overall mean less staking opportunity?
No matter the denomination, your overall ownership percentage as part of the total supply does not change.
If you own 0.0001% of the total supply today, that won’t change if everyone else has 100x less tokens.
At the time of writing this post, there’s close to 12 billion minted tokens, and that’s without the 3rd lockdrop. This seems like a ridiculous amount and will result in opening price of fractions of a penny.
Same as how having too low of a supply is not good because of the high price, the same stands for the other extreme - having too big of a supply.
Which is why I fully support a redomination of the total supply.
There are a few options:
10x - would still translate to a supply of over 1.2+ billion. Still a bit high in my opinion.
100x - translates to 120+ million tokens. Seems like a good balance.
1000x - 12+ million tokens, this is what Sota mentioned initially. I don’t mind it personally but reading some of the comments here I think the community wouldn’t like it too much, maybe we should wait for more feedback.
While I agree with the notion that the price plays a part in the psychological factor of price barriers, I’ve also witnessed that these sentiments break down with time and could also have a counterproductive effect.
Such as eliminating the USD value barrier with high supply but developing a satoshi value barrier because instead of $1, $10 barriers, you get for example 100 sats, 1000 sats barriers, in the end that’s basically the same psychological side-effect.
I know because I’ve held LINK in 2017 and $1 (or even 10000 satoshi) was a barrier of sorts back then, but like I said these barriers deteriorate and higher ceilings develop over time, of course assuming a healthy and successful project.
Hi guys, i d like to say my opinion about redomination of PLM - i am hodler already of 1,2 mil plm tokens … and i agree with redomination on the smallest amount possible - it looks really very cheap if you have 1.2 mil tokens with this kind of high level project … this is just my opinion how you decide after 3 Lockdrop it is your call - after 3rd lockdrop my holding will be bigger again …
When you transfer X amount of ETH and receive Y amount in your wallet most expect to keep that Y amount. I understand that your “ownership percentage” is not changing but it affects the 1:1 staking model. Well I believe its better I give an example, let’s say that you have two $10 video slot machines. Both machines cost $10 to play but the difference is that machine “A” has one payout line and machine “B” has a five payout lines. Majority of people asked would choose machine “B” because it gives you more chances to payout. I am aware that that machine “A” will have the largest payout but at a higher risk. With over 133649 in ETH (and rising) in the second lockdrop, we have an estimated 12+ billion tokens already minted and that is crazy. The second lockdrop has proven to be “too” successful and has negatively affected the planned tokenomics. I truly understand that we need to do something to put value back into the token especially with a third lockdrop planned but to tell people that just invested in the token that you are now “over sold” and the tokens that are now in their wallet are 100x-1000x less looks kinda suspicious and probably a money grab with the parachain auction just around the corner. Is there any way to adjust the supply without affecting the number of tokens that have already been issued? More than likely not but just trying to find a happy medium.
This example given would be a huge benefit for the value of the token and given the tech behind this project is already amazing. Yes, token distribution is also very important for overall value. Plasm stands out and will be know for the tech! Any choice of 140 million or less will be very good for the project. Billions in total supply will be something I see as negative. Most investors and friends I know stay away from tokens with a total supply in the billions. Think many of us realize that already.
I agree with Sota. I like the optics of having the price of 1 PLM equalling around $1 or $0.10. This gives the optics of a lower barrier entry cost, while also bringing the overall supply down. Too high of a supply count and too high of an opening price is a negative in drawing in new investors once PLM hits the market.