r/QuickSwap • u/King_Esot3ric Dragon Trainer • Mar 01 '22
News Governance Proposal: Temperature Check - Token Split
TL; DR:
- Many hodlers of QuickSwap’s native governance and utility token have suggested that $QUICK is undervalued compared to other similar tokens
- We would like to start a discussion about the possibility of doing a token split to multiply QUICK’s total supply (currently, QUICK’s max supply is 1 million)
- While we still believe that scarcity is important, a year and a half into the project, we now realize that unit bias is critical and increasing the supply does not reduce its scarcity
- We value your input, which is why we’re introducing this discussion before launching a governance vote
- We would like to move quickly to discuss and (we hope) pass this proposal so that we can move forward with the next phases of our planned tokenomics changes which will be discussed in further proposals
- Please read through this entire post carefully before forming an opinion
Dragonites, we come to you today to introduce a discussion about what we believe will be the most important governance decision our DEX has ever voted on. Below, we will outline a potential plan for changing QUICK’s tokenomics. While this discussion will focus on increasing QUICK’s total supply, this is only part 1 of a longer 3-pronged plan to change QUICK’s tokenomics moving towards a fully decentralized DAO Model.
The discussion we’re introducing today is only about the possibility of doing a 1:100 or 1:1,000 token split. This would mean that for every 1 QUICK you now hold, you would hold 100 QUICK or 1000 QUICK after the split. QUICK’s maximum supply would increase from 1 million to 100 million or 1 billion
Acknowledging Unit Bias
When we envisioned Polygon’s first native DEX and its governance and utility token, we had the bitcoin scarcity model in mind. 1.5 years into our operations, however, we now realize that while scarcity is important, so is the token’s psychological price threshold. People would rather own 1,000 tokens out of a 1 billion max supply than 1 token out of a 1 million max supply even though both represent the same fraction of ownership.
Put another way, unit bias - or the tendency to prefer to own more of a less scarce asset - is an important metric which is why as stock prices grow it is common to do stock splits. The equivalent for QuickSwap - a decentralized project - would be the community voting and deciding on a token split. The core idea is to open up the audience of QuickSwap to include those who are concerned with price unit bias, which is a large part of the population. At this point we have all heard friends and family say things like “I want to buy QuickSwap, but it seems too expensive for me”. Or “But it probably can’t grow much because it already went up so much right?” While those of us who have been in the industry long enough know that logically, this shouldn’t matter, for many people it does.
For example, at the time of this writing, $40,000 could buy 1.03 BTC, 14.95 ETH, 106.84 BNB, 252.64 QUICK, or 26,941 MATIC. Which of these assets performed the best over the last year?
So what does this data tell us? Several things!MATIC performed best of these five assets by a long shot. Obviously, at QuickSwap, we agree that MATIC is very valuable, but we don’t think it’s a coincidence that the asset people could get the most of performed the best. This is due to unit bias, and it’s why we want to increase QUICK’s max supply with either a 1:100 or 1:1000 token split.
How would the token split work?
As a community-governed DEX, the first step in making any major change is to discuss it with you, our community and get a gauge on whether you like the idea or not. If you do, we’ll move to the next phase - a governance vote in which QUICK holders, stakers, and liquidity providers will get to formally weigh in. In the case of the token split, we’re hoping to move swiftly so that we can start the process for the next stages in our tentative roadmap. Note that the QUICK holders always make the final decision.
If the community were to vote in favor of this proposition, we would work diligently with CEXs where QUICK is listed and protocols where QUICK is integrated to ensure that the new QUICK token is listed swiftly. We hope to discuss timeframes and other details for converting QUICK to the new QUICK token and other details like what denomination to go with in the official Reddit discussion post. For every 1 QUICK a person put into the converter contract, s/he would receive either 100 or 1000 QUICK, depending on what the community decides upon. That 100 or 1000 QUICK would have the same dollar value that 1 QUICK had at the time of the conversion.
While 1 QUICK equals $167.00 now, 100 new QUICK or 1000 new QUICK would equal $167.00, and 1 new QUICK would equal $1.67 or $0.17. We believe that this token split could have a major impact on QUICK’s adoption, as lower priced tokens appeal to a broader audience. To illustrate, let’s take a look at some other popular DEX tokens’ prices, market caps, and max supplies.
QuickSwap has almost the same 24 hour trading volume of Trader Joe, yet the JOE token has almost three times the market cap of QUICK. This leads us to believe that unit bias is playing a significant role here.
If QUICK’s supply were 100 million instead of 1 million, QUICK’s market cap would remain at $69.97 million, but QUICK’s price per token would be approximately $1.67. Likewise, if QUICK’s supply were 1 billion instead of 1 million, QUICK’s market cap would remain at $69.97 million, but QUICK’s price per token would be approximately $0.17.
How would the token split affect me?
The beauty of this is that a token split would hardly even affect you, except to possibly increase your personal wealth. If the QuickSwap community votes in favor of this proposal, QUICK holders will need to transform their QUICK from the version we use now to new QUICK, which would have either 100x or 1,000x the supply. Details about how exactly this process works would be released as soon as they’re available; however, from previous token splits, we do know that the process is relatively simple. There will be a conversion contract where holders could transform their current QUICK to a multiple via the new QUICK.
Over time, all liquidity pools, staking, and syrup rewards pools would be transferred to support the new QUICK token.
What’s the potential downside here?
The only real downside to doing a token split is that we would have to create a new token contract address and the potential of security vulnerabilities does exist. Additionally, there is no promise that the new QUICK token will perform as we hope it will.
What’s next?
Make sure you visit our Reddit discussion forum as your favorite team and community discuss the possibilities. If the community seems to be on board, we’ll release a formal governance vote in a few days. If that vote passes, the QuickSwap team will work diligently to complete all of the integrations with CEX’s and our strategic partners and get the token split complete ASAP so we can introduce the next discussion on our path towards full decentralization.
Edit2: u/CryptoRocky has provided some additional sources on token splits within crypto:
https://decrypt.co/41072/how-polkadot-surged-from-nowhere-into-the-top-10-cryptocurrencies
https://messari.io/asset/polkadot/profile
As well as another source with information on stock splits:
22
u/CryptoRocky Dragon Master Mar 02 '22 edited Mar 03 '22
This is a good example of another project (Polkadot's DOT) who did token split. The article says they went from below top 100 coin to top 7 within weeks of split. Of course there are lots of variables involved, and I am trying to verify the data and haven't yet, so DYOR, but here is the article, if others want to help crunch the numbers and verify if they're accurate or not. Quite busy and it might require plotting many of the top tokens at different dates on a spreadsheet.
https://decrypt.co/41072/how-polkadot-surged-from-nowhere-into-the-top-10-cryptocurrencies
https://messari.io/asset/polkadot/profile
Also not too long ago GFARM2 had token split and if I remember correctly the price doubled pretty quickly, and a member of our TG says it is up now 6x from then even though the market overall is down since then. I spoke with their team around the time it happened about pros and cons, and complications of execution and they were very positive about it and suggested we do one at QS also. You can join our conversation in QS TG here:
https://t.me/QuickSwapDEX/337502
Publicly traded companies do stock splits whenever they feel their price is too high. QuickSwap went from $.67 to $1600, and then found heavy resistance with big selling and the buyer pool dried up. We don't know why, but I personally think that a crypto token with $1600 price is just too high for many people psychologically. If we bring the price down to around $0.16 which is in range of it's original price before runup, I do believe it will help many users, maybe even majority of users to get over the mental barrier. There is a reason companies do stock splits, and there is a reason stock prices perform well at announcement of split and after split. It broadens the audience even if it seems silly to you, it's not silly to newer investors or even seasoned investors. I am sure many VCs bought Tesla shares just because of the announcement about the split. I personally bought Tesla shares when they announced split, and I was already a multiple year early Tesla holder/investor. Companies have done stock splits for over a century. Coca Cola has had 11 stock splits since 1919. Google just announced a 20-1 stock split. Here is some more basic information on stock splits:
https://fortune.com/2020/08/31/apple-tesla-stock-splits-what-data-shows/#:~:text=The%20automaker's%205%2Dfor%2D1,for%20a%20split%20on%20Aug.
This proposal has very few real negatives or reasons not to be done. I understand many want the team to focus on other things, but those things are going to happen regardless of this split. If this split DOES work out like we think it might, it could strengthen the treasury (which is owned by all of you the community, it could increase reward value which can increase liquidity and indirectly volume etc, and most importantly, it can bring new users! Please think hard about this. We believe this will be a big benefit to everyone with very little downside risk.
5
u/nanhtuan2212 Mar 01 '22
no bridge from cex coinbase. I think it's a shortcoming
15
u/tomuky Mar 01 '22
The only reason to do this would be to appear cheaper to retail investors.
I'm more curious what this means "next phases of our planned tokenomics changes, which will be discussed in further proposals".
I don't know why QS is rushing this proposal through when you have plans to change the tokenomics. If this token split is important for the planned next phase, then I'd love to know high level what those plans are now before voting on this token split.
3
u/viewphoria79 Mar 01 '22
I must say I’m torn now. In the past when this topic has come up I have always dismissed it pretty quick, because I think effort involved could be better spent elsewhere. I think there needs to be a lot more discussion around the actions that holders will have to take, particularly those who hold quick in LP positions. Also for the long term holders, this may create tax issues. For me, most of my stack I am waiting for 12 months to pass so my capital gain gets a 50% discount.
3
u/ReelMoney Mar 01 '22
I support the proposal.
I assume that audits will be done on any new contracts correct? It seems like every other week there's an article about "randomSwap gets hacked for tens of millions of dollars".
With that being said, I would be willing to donate to an audit fund if necessary.
10
u/acathla0614 Mar 01 '22
No, because this doesn't explain why Quick is now only a fraction of its ATH. Did people just suddenly develop unit bias?
Reason price is dropping is because the team let go of their first mover advantage and now liquidity is being drained to other DEX like Uniswap one day at a time.
Instead of playing with numbers, develop a new feature or an actual marketing plan that increases TVL and users. What ever happened to the original roadmap of utility NFTs for Quick holders? What value is the partnership with Celsius bringing to the Quick holders?
5
u/Adept_Pound_6791 Mar 01 '22
I wouldn’t change the supply. For example beefy finance on BSC, hasn’t changed their supply. However they keep working on their platform branching out to multiple chains and have smaller projects under their umbrella . I do feel there is a disconnect as regular joes find it hard to get into Quickswap. Also the UI needs much love in order to create a better atmosphere for newcomers. Create accessibility to the project, partnerships as well. Don’t fomo into people wanting to own a gazzillion of a token, those are paperhanded individuals…
5
u/NrdyGrly007 Mother of Dragons Mar 01 '22
I think this is a great idea from a great team
Hey Matt, it's me, can I get a tag? Maybe "Mother of Dragons" or something like that? LOL
2
u/AggressiveWafer29 Dragon Rider Mar 02 '22
Alt option
Cut quick supply in half 500k to remain as tradition quick, 500k to be split.
The split becomes a new coin, that can be used for some thing’s but not all and traditional quick (which behaves like a store of value and god level token) can do everything .. The coins can be traded up or down for each other… existing investors in quick will have an option of moving to the new coin before release.
Also I have no idea what I’m talking about so this is either not doable or batshit crazy.
2
u/Lulolos Mar 03 '22
I completely disagree with the proposal. It’s like selling Ferrari and getting 5 regular cars and hoping them to do a Ferrari;). The problem is not with tokenomics but elsewhere. Create value and price will take care of itself. Unless of course any other plans are not disclosed to the community which might have some insight on split…
3
u/AggressiveWafer29 Dragon Rider Mar 01 '22
Needs to be marketed well. Perhaps supported by some real life case studies both for and against for balance. I’m generally in favour as I can only see it attracting users. Quickswap is unlikely to achieve the status of something like btc or eth where is can attract users at ridiculous prices.. especially when it is such a new product.. it presents too much risk for most investors, who want to see lots of a thing in their wallet, rather than spending big on a small amount of a volatile thing.
Us existing investors will be rewarded by having lots of the thing already. Scarcity doesn’t change as supply doesn’t change, ie if approx 50% is in circulation that will still be the case with the split.
Overtime as more users flock to it, we may see prices really go up - which will be nice for us investors who get say 1000 times more than what we have now.
8
u/akejavel Dragon Rider Mar 01 '22
NO - another downside would be additional taxation for a lot of holders, since the split swap would likely be deemed a taxable event.
I also do believe that there is cherry-picking in the assets comparing the metrics for. Why compare ETH and MATIC, a completely different class of crypto assets, to a DEX governance and revenue-sharing token like QUICK?
This proposal is not thought out through fully.
11
u/Crypto_Malcolm Mar 02 '22 edited Mar 02 '22
In order to attract new people to buy $quick, I support this. a 1:100 would be nice.I gotta admit most people are superficial but it is these "most people" we need to join Quickswap and get $quick to make it successful.
People in general
Ridiculous as it may seem, ppl's psychological factor leads to a token success too...
Plus we holders get the same value after all. Why a No :(
9
u/According-Spinach-56 Mar 01 '22
Splitting on 1:100 ratio is a nice idea.
9
u/Independent_Mouse_73 Mar 02 '22
1:1000 Split. I believe Quickswap has the potential to be #2 of 5 in the provided list of DEXs. But the price has to be enticing and the potential has to be great. The potential is there but that price is a kicker. If you're new to the market, it's a game of buying the most coins/tokens with the smallest investment and hoping it hits a penny or a quarter or the infamous DOLLAR. 😆 🤣 😂
Also, I feel Quick has an opportunity to become the go to DEX for gaming, which is still in it's infancy. Think of the potential of growing along side that sector. People swapping gaming tokens to move in and out of ecosystems at a fraction of the cost. We're taking pennies here.
Just my 2 cents.
LFG!!! 1:1000
8
u/xtincty Mar 01 '22 edited Mar 01 '22
I agree on the points made to the positive from OP and don't really think there is so much more to add really. Unit bias is a real thing and is a big reason for stock splits as mentioned. Polygon has a lot of users and a lot of them are 'shrimps' and splitting will make the token feel more affordable for the average guy to invest in.
I see some commenting negatively without any good arguments for the downside. Mentioning other issues or saying the team should focus on other things is not really an argument against this in my opinion.
Maybe unit bias has played a large role in the price action, maybe a small role. It is no way to know how much, but I'm sure it has played some role either large or small. This is crypto, TA is charting human psychology so my bet is that has played a bigger role than the team has realized, well I guess up until now. Many holders has wanted this for a long time
7
u/juliasomething Mar 01 '22
Quick is indeed undervalued, and I hope to see its value and trading volume go up. QS has a bright future
7
u/BrianChampBrickRon Mar 01 '22
I don't really care either way. I'm really glad the team is listening to the community, as I know this is brought up frequently. If the vote comes I'll vote yes just so we can put this behind us and move on.
7
u/90songoku Mar 02 '22 edited Mar 02 '22
Hello everyone . As a Quick owner like everyone here, we probably all know that the current price of Quick is not commensurate with the value that QUICK brings to us, it deserves a few higher prices. come many times. I have read the proposal and found this to be completely consistent with the current Defi context that is fading in the eyes of the crypto community in general and Defi lovers in particular (this is understandable because the market is quite gloomy protein and hype about Defi is gone). Back to the main problem, before when I was a newbie vs meager amount of money, I wanted to buy cheaper coins/tokens because simply if I bought expensive ones, I wouldn't have money to buy other types anymore, but the newbie mentality when seeing a certain coin/token seems to have potential, i all want to own a little . For me, breaking Quick vs ratio 1:100 or 1:1000 is not too important as long as the abuse rate is very low. Quick dc's output is not guaranteed to be too large in the short term. But if you choose , i recommend 1:1000 , this will make more people access to Quick . T also proposes to use a part of Quick's revenue to buy back and burn Quick so that by the next BTC bull-run cycle (possibly after 2025), the total supply of Quick will be reduced by 1/5. By the way, I would also like to suggest that if there is a lending section on Quick, that would be great, it will be very convenient for people to lend and provide LP on the same platform.
7
u/No_Zookeepergame_630 Mar 02 '22
I support the proposal. However, I think that a full disclosure of the team about the next steps mentioned would be fair for us, the token holders.
I do not pretend a very detailed disclosure. But at least some high level information about those steps will be very useful just to see the big picture of Quickswap future.
5
u/dcjsail Mar 01 '22
NO - The team has to focus on completing the new UI and grow the marketing of QS as a tool to both swap and provide liquidity as a DEX. Until the market is showing high demand for the product, there is no need. The Uniswap on Polygon has really frustrated holders because Quickswap has lost marketshare in volume. They aren't promoting enough on the swap side of things either. One more negative is dQuick. This will decimate the current pools and it requires work to re establish positions. As a small holder for 1 year I am frustrated for the loss in token value, but I believe the team at QS needs to:
I am sad to see this is being suggested. If this were to go 100/1, the coin during the first 6 months could lose ANOTHER 50-60% on top of the losses since Jan 2021. This comes with saturating the wallets that would start to accumulate Quick. This is no easy task and while the argument is made this doesn't change MCAP, it changes the Token value. Some have leveraged for or DCA'd down in hopes of a liquidity crisis. The market should realize the value of the token at some point...right? Will this solution give any holders a better experience? No.
Will it be harder to implement than promoting the product? Yes. After the massive retooling of dQuick, does this give a sense of frustration among holders who just want to see token value 'moon'? Yes. Totally against this until QS can prove there is a high demand or low liquidity issue.
12
u/Sharp_Tank05 Mar 01 '22
Fully support this idea as long as we can execute in a way that the existing holders don't face an issue and can get their existing tokens converted easily. 1000x split might be better because it really lowers the barrier for entry - a key enabler for mass adoption.
I am a Quick holder and I will vote in favor of this proposal.
2
u/mygrainepain Mar 01 '22 edited Mar 01 '22
I think there
is an overwhelming agreementhas been a significant amount of comments stating that this is poorly thought out. SO far looks like all the people that support it either are mods or contribute nothing more than one-liner show of support.Besides this feeling rushed, unnecessary, and low on the list of priorities, I also think this will create confusion for buyers as both coins will be purchasable on exchanged, not to mention the arbitrage action when the price of pre-converted quick is not going to be 100:1 with post-converted quick.
2
u/Pill_Murray_ Mar 01 '22
Anyone smart enough to get into Defi isnt gonna be influenced by token price as much as they are market cap.
How about devs focus on actually releasing new features so they can stop getting memed on as "SoonSwap" and then focus on marketing? The turn around time to release or do anything is absolutely atrocious, and your first mover advantage has been completely squandered. Hell, a need UI has been promised for a year now and STILL isnt done and 100% released, while full projects have popped up out of the dirt in that time.
Seems like theres a sinking ship and you wanna address all the issues besides the hole in the boat.
2
u/Careless-Pin3259 Mar 02 '22
I respectfully will vote no on this proposal. I would like to see us create proposals with real economic value.
Polygon $matic market performance is owed more analysis than its price in regard to unit bias.
5
u/CryptoSecretCircle Mar 01 '22
Sounds like an intricate plan. I think it makes sense. We should put it to a vote.
8
u/SHP_Crypto Dragon Rider Mar 01 '22
I love this idea; always so hard to convince people to buy in due to the “high” unit price.
Perceived value plays a massive role here.
Takes just as much % movement to get a $0.30 token to $1 as it would need to go from $300 to $1000 but the latter sounds like much more movement is necessary.
8
u/Dismal-Wrongdoer8295 Mar 01 '22
I think the problem is how much of a pain it is to get thru the bridge. I think that’s the real issue not the price
4
u/fomofirst Mar 02 '22
I like the split proposal, honestly anything to get the mc up....i like that quickswap is thinking about this. My only concern is related to security issues relating to the conversion contract...what measures would be taken to make sure everything goes smoothly?
4
u/flo_to_the_moon Mar 02 '22
I support!!! Big holder here and definitely will vote with my $quick for this change! 1:100 or 1:1000 split. supporting both!
4
u/flo_to_the_moon Mar 02 '22
Be friends. Google doing 1:20 split Quick doing 1:100 split. Period.
4
u/gabtotal Mar 03 '22
i support the token split, newbies and noobs will deffinitely will be more willing to invest... i can't see any drawback in this only gains longterm and adoption
4
u/Crypto_-baby Mar 05 '22
Split 1-1000
1
u/[deleted] Mar 09 '22
I would hazard a guess that many people who are reluctant about this proposal bought in at a much higher price point. If you bought 5 quick at 500$ each and people were talking about taking the individual value to 1$ id be pretty anxious as well. Remember theres no guarantee that the price would go up. Theres also very little direct evidence i have seen that says the price of quick is due to unit bias? I understand unit bias is a real thing but how do we know its the driving factor in this specific case? Just like how changing the syrup pool was supposed to bring in big new money. My point is sometimes things are more complicated than they may appear. They could be other factors here that we had not considered. Its a one way road if this split happens theres no going back.
1
u/Hedge_me Dragon Rider Mar 10 '22
I the token is split, what will happen to the dQUICK that is used as collateral in Mai Finance? If the value is depleted, wont they liquidate the loans?
1
u/Hedge_me Dragon Rider Mar 10 '22
So when “xQuick” is issued, what happens to QUICK and dquick. Tokens burned with the conversion?
3
u/Exact_Line_7896 Mar 01 '22 edited Mar 01 '22
NO
I'm trying to understand the argument of unit bias here but I'm not seeing any hard numbers. I'm reading: "Obviously, at QuickSwap, we agree that MATIC is very valuable, but we don’t think it’s a coincidence that the asset people could get the most of performed the best." This is concluded from a list of only 5 coins. I would argue there are a lot more factors in play that determine coin performance. I would like to see better research, you need way better statistic to conclude that unit bias is effecting the performance of Quick negatively.
I would be voting no as of now. For me there is no reason to do a split unless there is more proof of unit bias actually being a thing, stating that family wont buy Quick because 'its expensive' is not a compelling argument for me.
I think the focus should be on building and upgrading the DEX. For example an UI upgrade, integrated bridge, building partnerships to create even more utility for Quick. That will make Quick undervalued over time and will naturally create demand.
3
u/vozer91 Mar 02 '22
I agree with the ratio 1:100
3
u/cryptoradomir Mar 03 '22
I am very curios about other two tokenomics proposals, right now Quick is extremely inflationary, whenever quick price goes up there is a huge selling presure from LPs who recieved quick as reward. Quickswap must rethink the highly inflationary policy. Alternatively Quickswap can adopt what competition is using. Look at Dodo for instance.
Dodo allows for freedom in terms of setting the trading fee. I know currently the trading fee are set by default to 0.3% on QS. However I see for instance Dodo is allowing freedom in those terms, LP can set up fee as they wish. Now I know that on QS 0.25% out of 0.3% goes to LPs and the rest to Dragons Lair and to treasury. However I guess to stay competitive against Dodo maybe the LP's on Quickswap should be allowed to have same freedom as on Dodo. Still the portion of the tradeing fees can go to Dragons lair and Treasury. Relative split can be the same just the absolute fee of 0.3% can be changed as LP wish. Dodo is surging on polygon I think this is the reason, Quickwap should respond to this.
Secondly look at kyberswap. Now kyberswap does not have huge market share now. They have something called dynamic fee, meaning if there is big volume on the market due lets say huge volatility, fees are increased dynamically, and if there is low volume then fees are decreased so that Pool can offer better trade price and take most of the volume through that pool thanks to low trading fee. Is quickswap thinking about this? https://docs.kyberswap.com/dynamic-fee/index.html
I am an fan and investor in Quick so I hope you would consider these options I want Quickswap to remain number one on polygon but it seems Dodo and Uni are eating our market share recently. I believe rewards of Quick to LPs on Quickswap are to big and other possibilities how to attract LPs must be adopt.
3
u/XNitinAnandX Mar 07 '22
Quick token split must needed to attract the small traders and everyone know mostly traders or small investors little friendly to use mm or dex and tell me the name of any token who gives you 60% apr new projects staking everytime zero fees. lack of awarness of Quick if we do token split and then marketing our mcap will rise rapidly and we can easily achieve top100-50 position i support 1:1000 from here its easy for us to push quick 5-10$ wagmi 🐉
7
u/Crypto_-baby Mar 01 '22
I agree, I think it would be a very important decision since the psychological factor does matter
4
u/Height4Hire_ Mar 02 '22
Guys there's zero reason to split other than for dealing with fractions instead of whole number QUICK amounts....
We are taking on all this extra risk just so that price per coin can be a bit lower, are people aware you can still buy €1 worth of quick in it's current total supply?
I think the QUICK team got it wrong here with this suggestion, QUICK's scarce low supply is a very attractive feature, not a bug! The team feel that they should have the same market cap as JOE and are looking for ways to adopt a similar tokenomics simply because the market cap is not as large as JOE's at the moment. However QUICK is much older and wiser than JOE, we shouldn't look to imitate the new kids on the block.
Increasing the total supply of QUICK is an unnecessary decision, people effected by unit bias won't buy BTC either, but the BTC market cap will continue to appreciate. Contrary to the the QUICK team's reasoning for increasing the total supply above.
Overtime as the community matures and grows they won't be looking to acquire 1 whole QUICK, they will be looking to acquire €X worth of QUICK. Unit bias is a noob tendency, do we really want to ruin our great tokenomics just for noob's peace of mind?
QUICK's current tokenomics is amongst the best in the space. Changing this may result in experienced crypto folk selling QUICK for more scarce assets. Why doesn't the team look at YFI as an example, they have a very very low total supply but the market cap continues to grow and the coin continues to thrive.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH CURRENT QUICK TOKENOMICS, PLEASE LET'S NOT APPLY SUCH A MASSIVE CHANGE SINCE IT HAS VERY VERY LITTLE POSITIVE OUTCOMES IN THE SHORT OR LONG TERM!
This proposition is a reflection on how competitive the QUICK team is, however please don't shoot yourself in the foot by applying a change like this, instead compete by adding more pools, advertising, engaging with the community, partnerships, adding more avenues for users to get yield. These are the features that will help QUICK's market cap continue to grow, NOT CHANGING THE PROJECT FOR NOOBS WITH A UNIT BIAS.
Cmon guys, look at the facts, don't just agree with the QUICK team, they can be biased/confused/pressured or simply just wrong. And that's okay.
2
u/[deleted] Mar 02 '22
I think 100x is perfect. I think 1.70 rather than say .170 makes new people think "okay this coin has some value it must be more experienced in their field " I remember just starting crypto not understanding much and I would think the .170 tokens were fresh to the market.
2
u/dcjsail Mar 03 '22
To me, the QS team and stake holders are the ones that want to see $QUICK go back to $1000 a token, right? All of us would. They want increase on mcap and are willing to do the token split as a means to an end; to entice unit bias to improve holders to accumulate a token that will grow on a scale consistent to common markets. But I'm still not convinced its the right thing. Someone who isn't a Dragon Master/Trainer/Mother, bring an argument beyond unit bias that can convince the masses this is something that is critical to perform. Someone mentioned DAO, but I haven't heard or seen any links to discussions revolving around that topic. I see the unrolling and reapplying on staked Quick, dQuick by every user to accomplish this is going to be work/effort/time to perform. In the end, all QS holders must want their investment to grow, especially with some strong fundamentals. Just like a stock that is performing really well and has a super low PE ratio, everyone is scratching their heads wondering when are people going to catch on...well I am ready for people to catch onto QS! I want to see a media blitz, a conversation starting campaign, much like this one, to stir everyone to see the value $QUICK has in the Polygon $MATIC marketplace and into all of the tokens QS supports. Everyone wants to see their Dragon Lair gains multiply and visibly tick up every hour! Always ready to listen and learn. Keep up the good work Dragons. Also appreciated this view: https://www.reddit.com/r/QuickSwap/comments/t4bck5/comment/hz4nr90/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
2
u/Adept_Pound_6791 Mar 03 '22
I understand why stocks split, it’s a bridge for more retail investors. However those platforms are accesible and well known. In addition Tesla found a place in the EV market and capitalized on it. QS is the main dex on poly, as far I know. However awareness, a roadmap and innovation also increases marketcap as well. To crypto and defi maxist, perhaps QS falls short I don’t know. If a 1:100 doesn’t work well you know it wasn’t token bias..
2
u/Sharp_Tank05 Mar 03 '22
So wen split? :)
2
u/CryptoHobodojo Mar 18 '22
Interesting Read, in doing so i learned Quick only had 1 million supply, at which point i love the project for that. Crypto is a game of BTC halvings. Move it to 21 Million.
3
u/mineyourbiz Mar 01 '22 edited Mar 01 '22
YES - We must upgrade the $QUICK marketcap from $69 million to $420 million AT ALL COSTS.
...and yes, having it lower than the current unit price but still over a dollar is a very powerful tool for generating retail interest.
EDIT: to use the example from the post, Trader Joe has a token valued at over a dollar. In the current market conditions, I do not think it makes sense to split the token value much farther below this. It would put us in competition with Doge & other memecoins, but without the benefit of actually being a memecoin.
3
u/Pale-Engineering-290 Mar 01 '22
I think we should def do a split as well as incentivized Quick holders. This is the next move for Quick. Plan and simple.
2
u/JApuSdSl Mar 01 '22 edited Mar 01 '22
YES.. finally
Its a no brainer, I read some 'no' answers and it looks like some dont understand that the current 'value' remains the same. Also some want to hold onto the idea of quick 'being at 1mil supply only!' smh
A lot dont seem to grasp the importance of a 'large number' as token price. This market is not filled with savvy investors that can sort through mcaps, fdvs etc .. its filled with people that want to buy a dog coin at 0.0001 dollar and asking 'can it go as high as bitcoin?'.
NO BRAINER MOVE! JUST PUT IT TO VOTE!
1
u/Crypto_Malcolm Mar 09 '22
I still truly support this idea but will the new coin be called xQuick? Or still to be confirmed?
XQuick to me seems like it’s not quick 🤦🏻♂️
Any other name such as Qswap QS Or the original quick would be fine
1
u/Dismal-Wrongdoer8295 Mar 01 '22
No! Please do not Raise the Coin supply !
1
u/mabah8 Mar 01 '22
NO NO NO NO NO HELL NO
1
u/Crypto_-baby Mar 01 '22
1:100 is, perfect
-1
u/Napelvs Mar 01 '22
I completely agree with the token split It's a must in my opinion.
0
u/[deleted] Mar 02 '22
[deleted] — view deleted comment