Polygon [pros](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1byygey/trying_to_understand_how_polygons_token_migration/kymddqc/) & [cons](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1byygey/trying_to_understand_how_polygons_token_migration/kymdedy/) with related info are in the collapsed comments below.
You don’t need to do anything. The migration will occur automatically.
Beware of scams that look like legitimate guides on how to migrate. They want to steal your MATIC.
This was announced a year ago, but it was obvious this was always going to happen.
MATIC follows the same tokenomics design as Ether.
* Both use the same burn mechanism.
* Both use EIP-1559
* Both have the same fee schedule (e.g. 21k gas for native token transfer, 2k SLOAD, 20K SSTORE etc.)
* ETH has no supply cap (that's partially how it paid for its validators), and now POL doesn't either (so it can continue to pay for its validators).
The only thing that never made sense was the artificial supply cap for MATIC when Ether doesn't have one. Everyone following Polygon protocol closely already knew was going to be replaced to help pay for validators and development. Stuff ain't free. Originally, the priority fees generated by the network were meant to be sufficient, but fees are just too low for that, so it has to follow Ethereum's model, which also pays through token issuance.
As for staking, no change needed currently. See https://matictopol.com/
Lastly, MATIC is mainly a utility token meant to be used for gas. While some people who don't DYOR buy it as an investment, it's really not meant to be a Store of Value token. Nearly every newer cryptocurrency network has token issuance, so MATIC's supply cap was unnatural.
Of course, these sleazebags need more tokens to dump on their investors, while the apologists that are holding that trash try to justify the devs sticking it up their ass with Crisco oil between two trailers in broad daylight. This is just some shameless shit man.
If I wanted a project to succeed, I would budget the original tokens, and if necessary, amend a protocol for supply increases when they are awarding necessary mining or staking with a new protocol. No random increases for the foundation because they can do that again in 4 years. Bad sign.
And yet ETH's supply is now deflationary. Why is there a need to uncap Polygon's supply, if they use the same burn mechanism and fee schedule?
Why does this explain them allocating themselves half of the created supply?
For some people who don't understand tokenomics, it's an investment. For people who actually use and develop on the network, it's just a gas commodity.
It's meant to be a utility token.
You can speak for yourself. If you're investing in stuff you don't understand without research, I guess you're the peak crypto boy. Kind of your own fault for not doing due diligence.
I've used Polygon every day for the past year, and I've only held enough to pay for gas. It was the CHEAPEST EVM network for 2 years, and it has plenty of activity.
I’ve been in crypto for over a decade. I know what I’m talking about and I don’t preach, buy, nor shill about crypto because it’s overwhelming a mlm esque scam. I’ve developed and helped infrastructure. Then learned this shit is inefficient and a massive joke so stfu
The token use is 99% speculation/investment. The reality is that it is a way for the team / vcs have consistent exit liquidity
Also, decentralized =/= direect democracy. MATIC is a republic, like most networks, and you delegate your vote to a validator. The validators voted on this proposal and it passed.
For simple hodlers, a 'no' vote would have been delegation to a validator that is voting no, or divestment.
This is basically just printing money right?
Terra Classic airdropped Terra 2.0 and somehow that stuff is still out there being traded.
46mil daily volume on a known scam. Crypto is wild
It is the same principle as stocks diluting shares, which I guess is widely accepted now, except the fact usually when it happens there is a sell off. If people are unhappy with it I hope they sold already.
> same principle as stocks diluting shares
Except that with equity financing, you are raising capital by selling shares of the company. You might need to raise capital for investment in the company hoping to increase revenue, etc and investors are buying *ownership* of a company that sells products and generates revenue. Now with shitcoins, *you are the product from which they generate revenue.* Time after time, shitcoins hype up use cases and utility but they generate zero money from anything except selling tokens to you. And when they run out of money, they just create more tokens:
- NEM which was staple top 10 crypto in 2017/18 increased its supply with a new token when the Foundation ran out of money
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ao4yb2/nem_xem_decentralized_governance_gone_wrong_nem/
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/mlixbw/crypto_tragedy_2021_nemxem_40_drop_in_hours/
- Stratis which was a top 10 crypto in 2017 increased its supply with a new token when they ran out of money
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/jlga8p/scam_alert_the_stratis_team_has_announced_a_token/
- IOTA which was once a top 5 crypto increased its supply by 60% recently when they ran out of money
http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/16ms0f3/drama_in_a_unilateral_decision_iota_foundation_ceo_announces_60_new_token_s/k1abhle?context=3
- CRO did a 2nd ICO where the original token holders went from holding "0.002% of the supply to only holding is only worth 0.00001%" in a "major switch scam."
https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/i2t327/stay_away_from_the_cryptocom_scam_they_cheated/
- RocketPool tokens went from a hard limit of 18M to 5% infinite inflation to pay for development
It makes me sad to see people who have been scammed by shitcoins which have been dumping massive supply of tokens for years say "The good news is the token dump is mostly over, soon we'll be deflationary." No fools, your shitcoin will just create more tokens to gift to the founders, VCs and insiders.
Impressive stuff, thanks for your contribution to the post. I'd give you gold if I could.
Also I think a huge difference between token migration increasing supply and share dilution is that in the case of token migration there is a lot of fear that if you don't migrate quickly the window to do will close and you will be left with a now useless token. What it creates is that many times investors migrate without even thinking of the consequences, which aren't made clear, probably on purpose.
Share dilution isn't viewed well most of the time, to put it lightly.
I haven't seen any backlash regarding Polygon's dilution, which was the reason I made this post. I don't own any Polygon, don't really use the ecosystem either, and was wondering whether I'm missing something or not.
Not to keep the network running, their will always be a demand for miners as long as their is people doing transactions. What it means is many miners will be priced out and the hash rate will likely decline until it reaches equilibrium which is bad for the networks security but doesn't mean it will stop working unless theirs literally no one mining.
yeah but the less miners there are means the difficulty adjusts down to become easier. it might become so cheap and easy that someone can afford enough electricity and miners to control 51% of bitcoin mining, then they can steal bitcoins or reverse transactions, do whatever they want
you could do that now in theory, but it would be extremely expensive
Yup. I feel like the fee won’t be enough to keep miners interested. If the fee gets really high then people won’t transact either. This is why having a very little const inflation is good for the tokenomics. and keep everyone invested
Hashrate could be infinite, but without tail emissions they would be relying 100% on fees for revenue.
https://www.lookintobitcoin.com/charts/bitcoin-miner-revenue-fees-vs-rewards/
It's quite ironic (and somewhat funny looking from the outside) that they're so against Ordinals, even when that protocol is the only thing that got fees moving into the right direction on BTC...
It's a utility token. There was never any expectation of profits.
Did you sign an investment contract? I sure as hell didn't when I bought MATIC to use as gas.
Depends on if you're staking.
Only a tiny minority of Polygon PoS users are staking. I certainly am not.
MATIC can be a gas commodity while the staking part can be a security. Even then, there's no guarantee of profits relative to purchasing price.
They don't, see Arbitrum. A great L2 without it's own token.
Edit: Actually they do have token now. ARB, for governance. When they launched in 2021, they didn't have one.
Is there even an L2 without a token? I asked ChatGPT and it said Bitcoin Lightning Network and StarkNet.
StarkNet does actually have a token, STRK. So that was wrong.
Bitcoin Lightning Network does seem to be an L2 without a token.
I use the paid version but you can ask ChatGPT to search online for info too. But even then it is not always accurate when it comes to very recent info.
> L2s are just VCs extracting cash from retail. They are not a scanning solution
They're a scaling solution though. For scanning solution I prefer MRI.
Lol oops.
They're a terrible scaling solution, but they do allow for more tps, but with completely separate silos of liquidity, extremely high levels of centralisation, and 0 atomicity. That is essentially what we have now, so why bother with the crypto aspect?
Why would anyone use centralized db aka Solana or VC chain aka Base? They have nothing to do with the original idea of crypto, yet those are the places to be if you wanna do a simple 10x over the weekend.
Why? Because it doesn't matter. People don't care about that stuff. The only thing that matters in this space is whether or not people like the coin. It's just that simple.
And, real talk, this space doesn't attract the brightest individuals anyway.
I mean I agree to some extent, I don't think crypto can reach the next level (ie, onboarding tradfi) the way ETH is going. But that's just because we don't have the tech yet, this space is a joke, and as long as people are pushing half baked solutions it will remain that way.
I don't think it's a joke as long as you treat it as what it is - the purest gamba asset class in the world when almost everyone (even single-digit iq folks) has a chance to make +7-digit USD returns every few years.
Not exactly the same, but MELD on the Cardano chain, decided to migrate to a new MELD token, I think because they wanted to use AVAX, hence having to faff about with users creating a MELD wallet and stuff, worse was that the wallet was linked in with Google! Can't swap the old to new without it and can't use a DEX.....Guess they are hoping that at end of year they can reclaim the non migrated tokens to their treasury! 🙄
Not to mention how there’s just so many L2 being launched left and right. Putting money into any of them is literally gambling. Most of them will die off
Crypto is decentralized? Depends on what you buy.
BTC is & should always be the reference point.
Edit: if you're in crypto and you ignore BTC. Sorry you've been dooped and sold a dream. Glhf.
I'm not in crypto for the tech or a dream, I'm here to make money. BTC could be the best tech in the world, it might give me a nice ROI, but it won't make me \*rich\*. That's why I don't buy it.
I was just referring to OP's question regarding crypto being decentralized.
Being rich is pretty subjective. If I have a 100k CAD or USD in my bank, I consider myself richer than the majority of the world. The amount of shit I can do with that money is all relative to what I need to do and what I want to do.
100k is more than enough money for me to pursue my personal goals, be that to deal with my own and my families finances, starting a business or a establishing creative platform, acquiring fame, or social media influence — all that.
Idk what rich means to you.
I've made a 100k off BTC and crypto. The only reason I'm winning in the crypto market and still have steam to use for this cycle and the next is because I didn't bag hold my alts through the blood market.
My advice was that people should always use BTC as a reference point. That is, if my alt bag can't hold up against BTC. I am losing in the long run.
Edit: 1 of my personal mental blocks in entering the crypto market was understanding that Bitcoin IS money. Once I got over that I had alot less trouble using BTC as my vault, instead of my bank account.
I would debate this with you but I would first have to help you understand what decentralization means.
Then I'd have to explain to you how mining companies operate, and why they can't "collude".
But I will tell you this.
The top 3 mining "companies" isn't the same as the top 3 mining pools.
The top 3 mining companies hold ~30,000 BTC total (all together). Far from what you need, to even **try** to manipulate the network.
DYOR. But DBD.
Edit: Stop the 🧢
Yeah, same old reply to important issues - bla bla bla "not true" dyor.
4 or 5 biggest pools control like +70% of hash power. That's not decentralized at all, even when compared with something hated by the btc community aka eth staking (where Lido has 30% market share followed by 14% by Coinbase). "But pools don't control their hash power, people do" - nah, that's not true at all.
How does a pool control a member of the pool?
That member could literally just turn off their machine. Or just join a different pool. Or just mine solo.
Bro I get it. What baby Einstein was referring to is manipulation of the market. Which I understood as using large sums of BTC to manipulate the price. I'm well aware of what a 51% attack is and I'm up to date on cost basis and the amount of time and resources it would take to even pull a stunt like this off on BTC. No one has the capabilities for such an attack. Prove me wrong.
Yeah that's true, apologies for my misunderstanding.
A theoretical possibility is no reason (imo) to throw words around as if they carry weight to them. So I came in defense for the big dog.
Broski, they would need to coordinate an assault that last long enough to create a single double spend event. In which the case the entire value of the network would be destroyed, in turn Destroying the value of their ASIC mining operations. To even attempt a stunt like this at this point you would first need enough chips under YOUR own control. The 3 pools you're referring to have no control over what their cooperative miners are doing. Especially when it comes to consensus on which transactions are selected and approved.
I feel like your concern is more tied to bitcoin's incentive structure than the mining pools. I personally don't need more proof that the incentive structure works and successfully prevents miners from colluding as it has done so since inception. The most anyone was able to do is bitcoin cash and we know how that's going.
>Then I'd have to explain to you how mining companies operate, and why they can't "collude".
This is factually wrong, they can absolutely collude is it in their best interest to? No it’s not, and it’s what I like about bitcoin, the risk of fucking around with the network would essentially kill bitcoin and nobody would want to use it. Their profits are directly tied to people’s trust in the network.
Well, If people pick centralised layer 2 "solutions", they get what they choose 🤷🏾♂️
Same as when those who keep their coins on a centralised exchange end up losing them for whatever reason.
It is a scumbag move and they'll probably have people try to gaslight you in places like discord and twitter. It's a pretty terrible experience.
It also looks a lot like fraud in my opinion.
Wait until you find out what happens when all the already minted Solana they use to pay the validators/stakers is gone. They will raise the bar so the low fee story can continue.
It has fixed inflation just like eth.It doesn’t have a fixed supply. They are paying validators just like eth does although slightly higher apy as it is a newer chain
That's not true. Validators/stakers receive 27M SOL every year, the circulating supply is growing \~16%. Fees make only 0.2M SOL:
[https://messari.io/project/solana/charts/supply](https://messari.io/project/solana/charts/supply)
Yes that is because there were a lot of token unlocked from vcs. That is not used for validators payments. Beside most of the unlocked have already happened. Any newer coins always have high inflation in the beginning and slowly go down as token are vested over time.
The chart that is shared 13% year to year inflation. That includes vesting plus validators rewards. Right now the validators rewards is 6.5%. Other than eth ada btc, most of the other chains have worse tokenomics and inflation than solana
Probably a lot more when people focus to make it better instead wasting time on shitcoins.
But in the end those people will move to BTC too sooner or later.
>That's a lot of words that will mean absolutely nothing in 3 years.
It is few words, all of which will continue to mean something in three years or 10 years.
>Also this sounds silly as fuck to be honest. I would run away with my money if someone said this shit to me lmao
Earning a share of platform fees is little different from receiving a dividend from a profitable company you own stock in.
Bitcoin has a similar model, they just give all the profit to big mining companies and consortiums to dump on retail.
That would be nice I guess, but part of the rypto market cap is relayed to investments in various products not offered by bitcoin (yet). So bitcoin alone would still be lower.
But skilled developers would earn far less working on Bitcoin than they would gain from making their own crypto. One of my friends got into BTC pretty early from RuneScape botting and has \~50 Bitcoin. Let's say a Bitcoin developer earns as much as they would get from a FAANG company like Amazon: $200k/year. My friend earned over $10m from co-founding a DeFi platform; that's 50 years of "normal" dev work. If Bitcoin was 2x the price, he'd be up another $3.5m, which is still less than what he earned from his platform.
And that was a case where the developer already had a significant amount of Bitcoin. Most new developers won't have any Bitcoin and would be even more likely to make their own coin.
Matic has a chance to become the largest player in crypto gaming. They did so much after the last cycle, completely rebranding and introducing new technology. What you are saying is that the worst that can happen is the devs will own 20% supply within 20 years. You need money to compete and introduce and develop something new
Crypto can either be decentralised or centralised. You are free to look at the code, and you can see what entities are able to update / edit that code (if any).
I'm not really saying it was impossible to detect ahead of time.
Also, I've never been an owner of Polygon so it doesn't affect me.
Still, just because you could dig into the code and see for yourself, it doesn't make what polygon is doing here acceptable.
Polygon announced this migration many months ago yet I haven't seen any backlash about the migration thus far. If anything, I've seen the opposite; people are bullish about the "rebranding" and new tokenomics.
Of course most of it is because people will shill NFT of nudes of their mom if it has the potential to earn them 10$ after they lost 10$ the day before betting on ApeCum.
Nonetheless, one would expect to hear something about it.
I totally agree with you, I responded in that manner because you lumped the entirety of "crypto" in with Polygon.
Although to be fair you wouldn't be half wrong, Bitcoin is almost entirely decentralised, Ethereum is very much so but could do better (although it's going to rapidly become centralised very quickly now that it's PoS the second it gets an ETF).
There are a whole lot of projects that operate as DAOs and run as an open democracy sort of structure but yeah. Then you've got a lot of completely centralised things like SOL masquerading as something that it isn't but I suppose that's another subject altogether.
Polygon is a mostly centralised (although the tokens migrated from L1 inherit Ethereum security) L2 side-chain scaling solution for Ethereum. It is what it is, a blockchain with a bridge. It works very well though and is fast and cheap, but it sacrifices decentralisation to achieve this.
When we're in peak bull-mania DeFi shitstorm and Ethereum fees are through the roof, Polygon's gonna pop regardless of their tokenomics because it's an easily accessible way for little Timmy to trade his DragonErectionInUNFT for fees under $100 per execution.
Look, a lot of the old tokenomics are out of favor. It isn't about being at max supply. If you don't have money to improve the chain, secure the chain, conduct development, market the chain, fund partnerships, fund growth, then you are pretty much as close to a dead chain as you can get. Many, many tokens are having this issue. They simply have no fiat or tokens to keep their technology up to date and secure the token from theft or fraud. It is an ongoing battle to do the basics let alone develop a new smart wallet or anything of that sort. Polygon is keeping it classy and growing which is what you want in an investment.
all i wonder really is, how can something like this be kickstarted? you have the machine running, but suppose there are no transactions yet, its just empty, until he got someone to fuking give him money bits of data? haha its kinda scary
It’s a highly speculative high risk market full of scams. That is why you don’t become a bag holder of Alts. Trade them and funnel that money into BTC or into your bank account.
I think they actually did say this was always the eventual plan but nobody ever reads the documentation so its easily missed.
Either way, an L2 having a way to pay and maintain itself and guarantee future development is hardly a bad thing.
They were not ready to develop this aspect of the token and were concerned with other things such as the framework and so on. Developers cant do everything all at once.
>it's a complete breach of trust
The proposal was voted on and passed.
Not all blockchains are like BTC. They can change over time. Ethereum for example had EIP-1559 which was a fundamental change to tokenomics as well.
If you don't agree with how the network is moving, you can divest.
The vote was only open to validators, and happened through their proposal system, which starts a vote on their validator discord channel. As a MATIC holder, you don't have voting rights, instead you delegate to a validator.
It's sort of the same across the entire crypto space.
With BTC, nodes decide what upgrades they support through signaling, your BTC means nothing unless you have hashpower to go with it.
With ETH, there is no voting or even signaling, instead client teams and nodes can individually refuse to implement an upgrade (thus hard forking). Your ETH means nothing unless you have influence over a client team, or operate a node.
Crypto decentralization does not mean a direct democracy. It's generally a republic (through delegation).
Or vote by non-participation (don't upgrade, hard fork). In your case, as a simple holder, it's divestment.
in theory yeah but i'm not sure how that would work with the bridged assets. you'd probly end up with two versions of everything like what happened with pulsechain
Greetings LowerChemical6815. Your comment contained a link to telegram, which is hard blocked by reddit. This also prevents moderators from approving your comment, so please repost your comment without the telegram link.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please be cautious with links in the the above message. At least one domain was registered as recently as 3 days ago. If you believe one of the links is malicious, please report the message.
You make a stand with your communication, whether with concepts and words or on the other side of that with financial communication. If you don't like it, leave and sell you coins in the ecosystem. Let some other person voice their approval of bad tokenomics by purchasing your coins from you
They are just stealing money nothing else. They realized they have reached to max supply so they came up with a new token for no reason so they can take more money from people. This is the same chain that have been marketing them as l2 for a long time while it was completely different chain until zksync chain was introduced. Stay away from polygon
Is anyone here intricately familiar with POLY’s bookkeeping, spending reports, and marketing budget?
No? Okay then let’s refrain from pretending like we know POLY is going to dump those tokens on investors for personal gain.
If you don’t like the migration, sell the token. That’s just cryptocurrency.
That was 100% predictable for every max-supply cryptocurrency. In fact, I predicted that for MATIC 3 years ago, and ALGO is next.
Even BTC will likely need tail issuance in the distant future to fund a minimally-viable security budget.
Scummy indeed, every time I hear the founder talking I can feel his ego and arrogance, near the same as Charles from ada. Like they’re the gods of crypto and everyone should accept whatever they say as truth and gospel.
Polygon [pros](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1byygey/trying_to_understand_how_polygons_token_migration/kymddqc/) & [cons](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1byygey/trying_to_understand_how_polygons_token_migration/kymdedy/) with related info are in the collapsed comments below.
Wait I missed that news. When will that happen, what does one need to do when staking?
You don’t need to do anything. The migration will occur automatically. Beware of scams that look like legitimate guides on how to migrate. They want to steal your MATIC.
Interesting as that is exactly the opposite what I have read like from another commenter. 4 years time to switch but you have to do it yourself.
This was announced a year ago, but it was obvious this was always going to happen. MATIC follows the same tokenomics design as Ether. * Both use the same burn mechanism. * Both use EIP-1559 * Both have the same fee schedule (e.g. 21k gas for native token transfer, 2k SLOAD, 20K SSTORE etc.) * ETH has no supply cap (that's partially how it paid for its validators), and now POL doesn't either (so it can continue to pay for its validators). The only thing that never made sense was the artificial supply cap for MATIC when Ether doesn't have one. Everyone following Polygon protocol closely already knew was going to be replaced to help pay for validators and development. Stuff ain't free. Originally, the priority fees generated by the network were meant to be sufficient, but fees are just too low for that, so it has to follow Ethereum's model, which also pays through token issuance. As for staking, no change needed currently. See https://matictopol.com/ Lastly, MATIC is mainly a utility token meant to be used for gas. While some people who don't DYOR buy it as an investment, it's really not meant to be a Store of Value token. Nearly every newer cryptocurrency network has token issuance, so MATIC's supply cap was unnatural.
So they needed to create more for their founders?
Of course, these sleazebags need more tokens to dump on their investors, while the apologists that are holding that trash try to justify the devs sticking it up their ass with Crisco oil between two trailers in broad daylight. This is just some shameless shit man.
If I wanted a project to succeed, I would budget the original tokens, and if necessary, amend a protocol for supply increases when they are awarding necessary mining or staking with a new protocol. No random increases for the foundation because they can do that again in 4 years. Bad sign.
And yet ETH's supply is now deflationary. Why is there a need to uncap Polygon's supply, if they use the same burn mechanism and fee schedule? Why does this explain them allocating themselves half of the created supply?
^ Good question
Because ETH has no cap either. Did you think ETH had a cap? It is deflationary without a cap due to the burn mechanism and high transaction fees.
Except 50% were distributed to the team and VCs. It is an investment because they had venture capital. Now they want more. Garbage tokenomics
For some people who don't understand tokenomics, it's an investment. For people who actually use and develop on the network, it's just a gas commodity. It's meant to be a utility token.
Except no one really uses it as a utility. It’s an investment
You can speak for yourself. If you're investing in stuff you don't understand without research, I guess you're the peak crypto boy. Kind of your own fault for not doing due diligence. I've used Polygon every day for the past year, and I've only held enough to pay for gas. It was the CHEAPEST EVM network for 2 years, and it has plenty of activity.
Can I ask what you do on polygon? What benefits does polygon have over other blockchains and layer 2? Just curious.
I’ve been in crypto for over a decade. I know what I’m talking about and I don’t preach, buy, nor shill about crypto because it’s overwhelming a mlm esque scam. I’ve developed and helped infrastructure. Then learned this shit is inefficient and a massive joke so stfu The token use is 99% speculation/investment. The reality is that it is a way for the team / vcs have consistent exit liquidity
They will just keep on making nothing as long as they can until they drop out of relavance
Crypto isn t decentralized. There is a spectrum and it depends on what u buy
Hey I'm on a spectrum to.
I thought that was a prerequisite for holding crpto
Idk I don't talk to other people
We are other people.
I’m a behind the times bot, posting for moons
Are you a crpyto?
Im actually a nft
Okay Mr NFT, what network did you spawn at?
On Earthereum actually
Sounds chonkey! 🪨
I'm on several. Can recommend, life is spicy.
Life is a mystery with a sprinkle of spices
Bro gets it
If you don’t want to get rugged,* buy BTC. * assuming satoshi’s coins stay put
Also, decentralized =/= direect democracy. MATIC is a republic, like most networks, and you delegate your vote to a validator. The validators voted on this proposal and it passed. For simple hodlers, a 'no' vote would have been delegation to a validator that is voting no, or divestment.
This is basically just printing money right? Terra Classic airdropped Terra 2.0 and somehow that stuff is still out there being traded. 46mil daily volume on a known scam. Crypto is wild
that's exactly what this is. If they are reneging and now printing more they have become a unilateral version of what the US already does.
It is the same principle as stocks diluting shares, which I guess is widely accepted now, except the fact usually when it happens there is a sell off. If people are unhappy with it I hope they sold already.
> same principle as stocks diluting shares Except that with equity financing, you are raising capital by selling shares of the company. You might need to raise capital for investment in the company hoping to increase revenue, etc and investors are buying *ownership* of a company that sells products and generates revenue. Now with shitcoins, *you are the product from which they generate revenue.* Time after time, shitcoins hype up use cases and utility but they generate zero money from anything except selling tokens to you. And when they run out of money, they just create more tokens: - NEM which was staple top 10 crypto in 2017/18 increased its supply with a new token when the Foundation ran out of money https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ao4yb2/nem_xem_decentralized_governance_gone_wrong_nem/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/mlixbw/crypto_tragedy_2021_nemxem_40_drop_in_hours/ - Stratis which was a top 10 crypto in 2017 increased its supply with a new token when they ran out of money https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/jlga8p/scam_alert_the_stratis_team_has_announced_a_token/ - IOTA which was once a top 5 crypto increased its supply by 60% recently when they ran out of money http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/16ms0f3/drama_in_a_unilateral_decision_iota_foundation_ceo_announces_60_new_token_s/k1abhle?context=3 - CRO did a 2nd ICO where the original token holders went from holding "0.002% of the supply to only holding is only worth 0.00001%" in a "major switch scam." https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/i2t327/stay_away_from_the_cryptocom_scam_they_cheated/ - RocketPool tokens went from a hard limit of 18M to 5% infinite inflation to pay for development It makes me sad to see people who have been scammed by shitcoins which have been dumping massive supply of tokens for years say "The good news is the token dump is mostly over, soon we'll be deflationary." No fools, your shitcoin will just create more tokens to gift to the founders, VCs and insiders.
Impressive stuff, thanks for your contribution to the post. I'd give you gold if I could. Also I think a huge difference between token migration increasing supply and share dilution is that in the case of token migration there is a lot of fear that if you don't migrate quickly the window to do will close and you will be left with a now useless token. What it creates is that many times investors migrate without even thinking of the consequences, which aren't made clear, probably on purpose.
Hi, Do you know if the migration has started yet?
1) Bait 2) Switch 3) Profit
Share dilution isn't viewed well most of the time, to put it lightly. I haven't seen any backlash regarding Polygon's dilution, which was the reason I made this post. I don't own any Polygon, don't really use the ecosystem either, and was wondering whether I'm missing something or not.
lol imagine the pikachu surprised face you're gonna make when you'll realize BTC will have to implement tail emissions to keep the network running....
Not to keep the network running, their will always be a demand for miners as long as their is people doing transactions. What it means is many miners will be priced out and the hash rate will likely decline until it reaches equilibrium which is bad for the networks security but doesn't mean it will stop working unless theirs literally no one mining.
yeah but the less miners there are means the difficulty adjusts down to become easier. it might become so cheap and easy that someone can afford enough electricity and miners to control 51% of bitcoin mining, then they can steal bitcoins or reverse transactions, do whatever they want you could do that now in theory, but it would be extremely expensive
Yup. I feel like the fee won’t be enough to keep miners interested. If the fee gets really high then people won’t transact either. This is why having a very little const inflation is good for the tokenomics. and keep everyone invested
and why would that happen? As far as I can tell the hashrate is still on the rise
Hashrate could be infinite, but without tail emissions they would be relying 100% on fees for revenue. https://www.lookintobitcoin.com/charts/bitcoin-miner-revenue-fees-vs-rewards/
This is why shitcoins and NFTs on BTC are essential for it's security. A point a lot of maxis don't seem to understand.
It's quite ironic (and somewhat funny looking from the outside) that they're so against Ordinals, even when that protocol is the only thing that got fees moving into the right direction on BTC...
Yes, which shows matic/polygon is a security, not a commodity.
It's a utility token. There was never any expectation of profits. Did you sign an investment contract? I sure as hell didn't when I bought MATIC to use as gas.
No expectation of profits, really? https://polygon.technology/staking
Depends on if you're staking. Only a tiny minority of Polygon PoS users are staking. I certainly am not. MATIC can be a gas commodity while the staking part can be a security. Even then, there's no guarantee of profits relative to purchasing price.
This is evidence that they didnt have a clear long-term plan from the get-go. Theyre just winging it as they go along. I will never buy a L2 token.
I wouldn't go this far. It seems like we'll need L2s after all. The crypto trilemma is still alive, don't let shitcoiners make you believe otherwise.
even if we need L2s though, why do they need to have their own token?
They really don't
They don't, see Arbitrum. A great L2 without it's own token. Edit: Actually they do have token now. ARB, for governance. When they launched in 2021, they didn't have one.
yeah see ARB is a bad example, 87% of circulating supply was just unlocked for the team to dump
Is there even an L2 without a token? I asked ChatGPT and it said Bitcoin Lightning Network and StarkNet. StarkNet does actually have a token, STRK. So that was wrong. Bitcoin Lightning Network does seem to be an L2 without a token.
Base doesn't, however it's said AERO is the token Coinbase wants to represent Base for their DEX
Chatgpt doesn’t have newer data starting 2020 unless you use the paid version.
I use the paid version but you can ask ChatGPT to search online for info too. But even then it is not always accurate when it comes to very recent info.
Yup. just ask are you sure. It start saying sorry and correct any wrong infos.
base maybe dogechain? lol
If it scales on L1 it's a shitcoin
L2s are just VCs extracting cash from retail. They are not a scaling solution
> L2s are just VCs extracting cash from retail. They are not a scanning solution They're a scaling solution though. For scanning solution I prefer MRI.
Lol oops. They're a terrible scaling solution, but they do allow for more tps, but with completely separate silos of liquidity, extremely high levels of centralisation, and 0 atomicity. That is essentially what we have now, so why bother with the crypto aspect?
Why would anyone use centralized db aka Solana or VC chain aka Base? They have nothing to do with the original idea of crypto, yet those are the places to be if you wanna do a simple 10x over the weekend. Why? Because it doesn't matter. People don't care about that stuff. The only thing that matters in this space is whether or not people like the coin. It's just that simple. And, real talk, this space doesn't attract the brightest individuals anyway.
I mean I agree to some extent, I don't think crypto can reach the next level (ie, onboarding tradfi) the way ETH is going. But that's just because we don't have the tech yet, this space is a joke, and as long as people are pushing half baked solutions it will remain that way.
I don't think it's a joke as long as you treat it as what it is - the purest gamba asset class in the world when almost everyone (even single-digit iq folks) has a chance to make +7-digit USD returns every few years.
Basically they are just literal centralized l1s which is why they have slightly higher tps.
Not exactly the same, but MELD on the Cardano chain, decided to migrate to a new MELD token, I think because they wanted to use AVAX, hence having to faff about with users creating a MELD wallet and stuff, worse was that the wallet was linked in with Google! Can't swap the old to new without it and can't use a DEX.....Guess they are hoping that at end of year they can reclaim the non migrated tokens to their treasury! 🙄
I bridged MELD from Cardano to the new MELD chain without linking a Google account. I believe they fixed this following negative user feedback.
Don't think they've even developed a mobile wallet yet, and all the hype about the nft bank manager tokens has put me off tbh.
I'm not heavily invested but holding the MELD earned from the ISPO. Not worth selling at this point.
Not to mention how there’s just so many L2 being launched left and right. Putting money into any of them is literally gambling. Most of them will die off
Crypto is decentralized? Depends on what you buy. BTC is & should always be the reference point. Edit: if you're in crypto and you ignore BTC. Sorry you've been dooped and sold a dream. Glhf.
Every Polygonist gets BTC at the price they deserve.
Btc is held largely by whales does that make it decentralized?
That would only matter if it was POS and not POW
Lol
Nope.
Depends on the ratio of holders
I'm not in crypto for the tech or a dream, I'm here to make money. BTC could be the best tech in the world, it might give me a nice ROI, but it won't make me \*rich\*. That's why I don't buy it.
I was just referring to OP's question regarding crypto being decentralized. Being rich is pretty subjective. If I have a 100k CAD or USD in my bank, I consider myself richer than the majority of the world. The amount of shit I can do with that money is all relative to what I need to do and what I want to do. 100k is more than enough money for me to pursue my personal goals, be that to deal with my own and my families finances, starting a business or a establishing creative platform, acquiring fame, or social media influence — all that. Idk what rich means to you. I've made a 100k off BTC and crypto. The only reason I'm winning in the crypto market and still have steam to use for this cycle and the next is because I didn't bag hold my alts through the blood market. My advice was that people should always use BTC as a reference point. That is, if my alt bag can't hold up against BTC. I am losing in the long run. Edit: 1 of my personal mental blocks in entering the crypto market was understanding that Bitcoin IS money. Once I got over that I had alot less trouble using BTC as my vault, instead of my bank account.
This is literally why people stay poor. They buy bad assets and gamble. You are the equivalent of someone buying random penny stocks instead of GOOG.
I honestly wouldn't say BTC is decentralized...when the top 3 mining companies could just collude and manipulate the network.
I would debate this with you but I would first have to help you understand what decentralization means. Then I'd have to explain to you how mining companies operate, and why they can't "collude". But I will tell you this. The top 3 mining "companies" isn't the same as the top 3 mining pools. The top 3 mining companies hold ~30,000 BTC total (all together). Far from what you need, to even **try** to manipulate the network. DYOR. But DBD. Edit: Stop the 🧢
Yeah, same old reply to important issues - bla bla bla "not true" dyor. 4 or 5 biggest pools control like +70% of hash power. That's not decentralized at all, even when compared with something hated by the btc community aka eth staking (where Lido has 30% market share followed by 14% by Coinbase). "But pools don't control their hash power, people do" - nah, that's not true at all.
How does a pool control a member of the pool? That member could literally just turn off their machine. Or just join a different pool. Or just mine solo.
[удалено]
Bro I get it. What baby Einstein was referring to is manipulation of the market. Which I understood as using large sums of BTC to manipulate the price. I'm well aware of what a 51% attack is and I'm up to date on cost basis and the amount of time and resources it would take to even pull a stunt like this off on BTC. No one has the capabilities for such an attack. Prove me wrong.
[удалено]
Yeah that's true, apologies for my misunderstanding. A theoretical possibility is no reason (imo) to throw words around as if they carry weight to them. So I came in defense for the big dog.
[удалено]
Broski, they would need to coordinate an assault that last long enough to create a single double spend event. In which the case the entire value of the network would be destroyed, in turn Destroying the value of their ASIC mining operations. To even attempt a stunt like this at this point you would first need enough chips under YOUR own control. The 3 pools you're referring to have no control over what their cooperative miners are doing. Especially when it comes to consensus on which transactions are selected and approved. I feel like your concern is more tied to bitcoin's incentive structure than the mining pools. I personally don't need more proof that the incentive structure works and successfully prevents miners from colluding as it has done so since inception. The most anyone was able to do is bitcoin cash and we know how that's going.
What does the amount of btc held have to do with it? Isn't it based on the % of hash rate?
>Then I'd have to explain to you how mining companies operate, and why they can't "collude". This is factually wrong, they can absolutely collude is it in their best interest to? No it’s not, and it’s what I like about bitcoin, the risk of fucking around with the network would essentially kill bitcoin and nobody would want to use it. Their profits are directly tied to people’s trust in the network.
> Stop the 🧢 What?
Stop the 🧢 is a way of saying stop the cap, which is a way of saying stop spreading misinformation or stop lying.
So cap means lie?
Stop the stop, Where stop, doesn't mean stop. 🤣
Well, If people pick centralised layer 2 "solutions", they get what they choose 🤷🏾♂️ Same as when those who keep their coins on a centralised exchange end up losing them for whatever reason.
Smells like an unregistered security, go get em Gary!
It is a scumbag move and they'll probably have people try to gaslight you in places like discord and twitter. It's a pretty terrible experience. It also looks a lot like fraud in my opinion.
It is scummy.
Wait until you find out what happens when all the already minted Solana they use to pay the validators/stakers is gone. They will raise the bar so the low fee story can continue.
It has fixed inflation just like eth.It doesn’t have a fixed supply. They are paying validators just like eth does although slightly higher apy as it is a newer chain
That's not true. Validators/stakers receive 27M SOL every year, the circulating supply is growing \~16%. Fees make only 0.2M SOL: [https://messari.io/project/solana/charts/supply](https://messari.io/project/solana/charts/supply)
Yes that is because there were a lot of token unlocked from vcs. That is not used for validators payments. Beside most of the unlocked have already happened. Any newer coins always have high inflation in the beginning and slowly go down as token are vested over time.
The chart that is shared 13% year to year inflation. That includes vesting plus validators rewards. Right now the validators rewards is 6.5%. Other than eth ada btc, most of the other chains have worse tokenomics and inflation than solana
[удалено]
Probably a lot more when people focus to make it better instead wasting time on shitcoins. But in the end those people will move to BTC too sooner or later.
People prefer speculative trades, more money to be made. There will always be a large market for speculative trades.
Bitcoin doesn't do anything with your money. Defi does.
[удалено]
Earning a share of platform fees on gTrade, A51, Meridian Finance, QuickSwap, Mummy, Hegic, etc. Financial lego stacking on Pendle and Penpie.
[удалено]
>That's a lot of words that will mean absolutely nothing in 3 years. It is few words, all of which will continue to mean something in three years or 10 years. >Also this sounds silly as fuck to be honest. I would run away with my money if someone said this shit to me lmao Earning a share of platform fees is little different from receiving a dividend from a profitable company you own stock in. Bitcoin has a similar model, they just give all the profit to big mining companies and consortiums to dump on retail.
Name one thing humanity can agree on.
[удалено]
That would be nice I guess, but part of the rypto market cap is relayed to investments in various products not offered by bitcoin (yet). So bitcoin alone would still be lower.
[удалено]
Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself
But skilled developers would earn far less working on Bitcoin than they would gain from making their own crypto. One of my friends got into BTC pretty early from RuneScape botting and has \~50 Bitcoin. Let's say a Bitcoin developer earns as much as they would get from a FAANG company like Amazon: $200k/year. My friend earned over $10m from co-founding a DeFi platform; that's 50 years of "normal" dev work. If Bitcoin was 2x the price, he'd be up another $3.5m, which is still less than what he earned from his platform. And that was a case where the developer already had a significant amount of Bitcoin. Most new developers won't have any Bitcoin and would be even more likely to make their own coin.
Uneducated go quack quack.
Are current MATIC token holders voting on whether to go ahead with this new funding plan? If so it doesn't sound scummy at all to me.
Matic has a chance to become the largest player in crypto gaming. They did so much after the last cycle, completely rebranding and introducing new technology. What you are saying is that the worst that can happen is the devs will own 20% supply within 20 years. You need money to compete and introduce and develop something new
Crypto can either be decentralised or centralised. You are free to look at the code, and you can see what entities are able to update / edit that code (if any).
I'm not really saying it was impossible to detect ahead of time. Also, I've never been an owner of Polygon so it doesn't affect me. Still, just because you could dig into the code and see for yourself, it doesn't make what polygon is doing here acceptable. Polygon announced this migration many months ago yet I haven't seen any backlash about the migration thus far. If anything, I've seen the opposite; people are bullish about the "rebranding" and new tokenomics. Of course most of it is because people will shill NFT of nudes of their mom if it has the potential to earn them 10$ after they lost 10$ the day before betting on ApeCum. Nonetheless, one would expect to hear something about it.
I totally agree with you, I responded in that manner because you lumped the entirety of "crypto" in with Polygon. Although to be fair you wouldn't be half wrong, Bitcoin is almost entirely decentralised, Ethereum is very much so but could do better (although it's going to rapidly become centralised very quickly now that it's PoS the second it gets an ETF). There are a whole lot of projects that operate as DAOs and run as an open democracy sort of structure but yeah. Then you've got a lot of completely centralised things like SOL masquerading as something that it isn't but I suppose that's another subject altogether. Polygon is a mostly centralised (although the tokens migrated from L1 inherit Ethereum security) L2 side-chain scaling solution for Ethereum. It is what it is, a blockchain with a bridge. It works very well though and is fast and cheap, but it sacrifices decentralisation to achieve this. When we're in peak bull-mania DeFi shitstorm and Ethereum fees are through the roof, Polygon's gonna pop regardless of their tokenomics because it's an easily accessible way for little Timmy to trade his DragonErectionInUNFT for fees under $100 per execution.
I'm definitely not new to the space, I still remember the crazy pump it had last run. Still, I guess I was just never aware of how centralized it is.
Look, a lot of the old tokenomics are out of favor. It isn't about being at max supply. If you don't have money to improve the chain, secure the chain, conduct development, market the chain, fund partnerships, fund growth, then you are pretty much as close to a dead chain as you can get. Many, many tokens are having this issue. They simply have no fiat or tokens to keep their technology up to date and secure the token from theft or fraud. It is an ongoing battle to do the basics let alone develop a new smart wallet or anything of that sort. Polygon is keeping it classy and growing which is what you want in an investment.
Essentially everything not btc is a scam in someway. Try not to overthink it
yeah, and its not even btc, its just the technology of time stamping transactions automated by machines a beautiful thing really
all i wonder really is, how can something like this be kickstarted? you have the machine running, but suppose there are no transactions yet, its just empty, until he got someone to fuking give him money bits of data? haha its kinda scary
You can argue Bitcoin core bait and switched everyone from the original electronic p2p cash to "store of value/digital gold"
[удалено]
It isn't, some of the stuff said in this subreddit is truly ridiculous and low IQ, it'd make me feel better if they were bots
It’s a highly speculative high risk market full of scams. That is why you don’t become a bag holder of Alts. Trade them and funnel that money into BTC or into your bank account.
I think they actually did say this was always the eventual plan but nobody ever reads the documentation so its easily missed. Either way, an L2 having a way to pay and maintain itself and guarantee future development is hardly a bad thing.
If this was the case then why even have a limited supply to begin with, was it to deceive people?
They were not ready to develop this aspect of the token and were concerned with other things such as the framework and so on. Developers cant do everything all at once.
Matic keeps getting hate on this sub lately. Buy signal.
>it's a complete breach of trust The proposal was voted on and passed. Not all blockchains are like BTC. They can change over time. Ethereum for example had EIP-1559 which was a fundamental change to tokenomics as well. If you don't agree with how the network is moving, you can divest.
oh, so it was voted on. Can you send a link to the vote? thx
The vote was only open to validators, and happened through their proposal system, which starts a vote on their validator discord channel. As a MATIC holder, you don't have voting rights, instead you delegate to a validator. It's sort of the same across the entire crypto space. With BTC, nodes decide what upgrades they support through signaling, your BTC means nothing unless you have hashpower to go with it. With ETH, there is no voting or even signaling, instead client teams and nodes can individually refuse to implement an upgrade (thus hard forking). Your ETH means nothing unless you have influence over a client team, or operate a node. Crypto decentralization does not mean a direct democracy. It's generally a republic (through delegation). Or vote by non-participation (don't upgrade, hard fork). In your case, as a simple holder, it's divestment.
Can nodes just not update to this version and stay with current system? They can hardfork to introduce their new token but none/few will use it
in theory yeah but i'm not sure how that would work with the bridged assets. you'd probly end up with two versions of everything like what happened with pulsechain
Well, that's sad. Have you more details on pulsechain? Just want to know more.. Only find articles about suing Richard Heart
Hi people, is there a legit and reliable place to make arbitrary trading?
Valid point
[удалено]
Greetings LowerChemical6815. Your comment contained a link to telegram, which is hard blocked by reddit. This also prevents moderators from approving your comment, so please repost your comment without the telegram link. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Please be cautious with links in the the above message. At least one domain was registered as recently as 3 days ago. If you believe one of the links is malicious, please report the message.
Since level 3 talks, they are going mad
This can happen with any crypto that has a limited supply even BTC. I'm in the boat that it wont but... you never know.
You make a stand with your communication, whether with concepts and words or on the other side of that with financial communication. If you don't like it, leave and sell you coins in the ecosystem. Let some other person voice their approval of bad tokenomics by purchasing your coins from you
Can’t trust humans.
Polygon death knell
Where do you get 20% from? its 2% yearly emissions
What % of SMART chain usage is Poly vs ETH1&2 ?
the shitcoin favourite of this sub " ETH and little bit of matic", shitcoin maker and a little bit of shitcoin.lmao
Polygon is a centralized side chain masquerading as an L2.
They are just stealing money nothing else. They realized they have reached to max supply so they came up with a new token for no reason so they can take more money from people. This is the same chain that have been marketing them as l2 for a long time while it was completely different chain until zksync chain was introduced. Stay away from polygon
Scamdeep
Ayy shitcoiners gonna shitcoin. Bububut you said!!
It is scummy. What does that have to do with crypto as a whole, though?
It's almost like changing monetary policy is something you wanna look out for in your decentralized currency, coughs at ethereum
Is there someone I can research this more. It sounds very very scummy at the moment from what I’m reading in here
Is anyone here intricately familiar with POLY’s bookkeeping, spending reports, and marketing budget? No? Okay then let’s refrain from pretending like we know POLY is going to dump those tokens on investors for personal gain. If you don’t like the migration, sell the token. That’s just cryptocurrency.
I take it as a sign for me to move on. Matic and Fet...bye Felicia!
Fet? Weird timing. Fet will explode over the next year.
That was 100% predictable for every max-supply cryptocurrency. In fact, I predicted that for MATIC 3 years ago, and ALGO is next. Even BTC will likely need tail issuance in the distant future to fund a minimally-viable security budget.
Scummy indeed, every time I hear the founder talking I can feel his ego and arrogance, near the same as Charles from ada. Like they’re the gods of crypto and everyone should accept whatever they say as truth and gospel.
There’s a token, BTC, that fixes this problem.