PG Token Conversion - Original Proposal

[0x1F]

Summary

This proposal details the planned consolidation of the Polyient Games token economy into the PolyientX token economy.

In short, we are proposing a drastically simplified tokenomic system that is built around a single, inflationary fungible token that will double as the utility and governance token for the PolyientX vaults and marketplace platform.

This simplification will remove all current Polyient Games fungible tokens from circulation, including Polyient Games Governance Token (PGT), Polyient Games Unity Token (PGU), and PGFK Particles (xPGFK). To facilitate, Polyient will be releasing a portal for a smart contract that allows users to automatically convert each of their fungible tokens into the new PolyientX token (PX) at the appropriate market conversion rates.

The Polyient Games Founder’s Key (PGFK) will remain in circulation and will be accepted in an exclusive PolyientX vault that will output PX.

Background

The decision to consolidate the token economy into a single PX token was two-fold:

1. To facilitate a more efficient interaction across the various PolyientX protocols
2. To reduce complexity in order to help eliminate barriers to adoption for new and existing users

Ultimately, a major consolidation of the token economy is required as we pivot away from the Ecosystem model, which has proven to be an inefficient approach to aligning user and third-party incentives. More information on the state of the NFT market and the lessons learned can be found here.

Additionally, we have found that passive user participation via the current reward mechanisms has created a non-productive environment that is unsustainable without further, substantial token value loss and spinning wheels in terms of expanding our technical innovations in the market.

PolyientX Token (PX) Details

PX is an ERC-20 fungible token that is designed to function as the core utility token for the PolyientX platform. This utility is primarily centered around reward incentives associated with PolyientX community and third-party vaults.

PX will be primarily distributed via vaults and farms. For vaults, users will be able to input PGFKs or governance approved, third-party tokens (fungible or non-fungible, depending on the project) to earn PX. The governance approval mechanism will launch at a later date when all smart contracts are in place.

In order to incentivize further lock-up and a healthy decentralized trading market, we will run regular liquidity mining farms for PX-ETH LP tokens. We are currently planning to steer our liquidity towards Sushiswap to drive mainstream crypto user adoption (we are currently working on the next stages for Polyient DEX and more information will be provided later this year).

Normal PX will not have governance rights. Instead, we will be releasing a system where users lock-up their PX for gPX, which will function as the primary voting unit and catch-all for value accrual on the PolyientX platform. gPX will programmatically collect fees from across the PolyientX vaults and marketplace protocols, including third party vaults and marketplaces. A good comparable to this is the Sushi<>xSushi system.

We are also exploring additional deflationary mechanisms to further lock up or reduce circulating supply. Full details on the PX<>gPX system will be available in the coming weeks.

PolyientX Token (PX) Tokenomics

• Initial Supply: 141,125

• Total Supply: Unlimited

• Distribution: 0.55 PX per Ethereum Block; 40% to PGFK+Liquidity Farms and 60% to PolyientX protocol rewards

• Year 1 Inflation: 358.10%

• Year 2 Inflation: 78.17%

• Year 3 Inflation: 43.87%

Note: inflation percentages do not account for deflationary mechanisms including locking and burning.

Proposed Conversion

Before we detail the conversion, it’s important to note that all Polyient tokens have been directly distributed to PGFK holders and liquidity providers. PGFK holders have enjoyed multi-million dollar rewards to date with total rewards peaking in the tens of millions of dollars at the height of the market. Polyient never directly sold any fungible token.

With that in mind, we will be leveraging the going market rate for PGU, PGT and xPGFK when converting into PX. PGFK holders will not convert their tokens initially but instead benefit from a boosted PX vaulting period that will help them surpass their pre-conversion proportion of token economy ownership over time.

|Token|Reference Value|FDT Market Cap|PX Allocation|
|PGU|$1.0|$360,000|19,810.10|
|PGT|$100.0|$2,000,000|116,873.76|
|xPGFK|$0.1|$76,000|4,441.20|

Similar to all previous token rewards, the PG token holders will have a monopoly on the production of PX to start (PGU will receive 5.84 PX per 100 tokens, PGT holders will receive 584 PX per 100 tokens, etc.) . Savvy users will be able to substantially grow their % control of the PX token economy by putting their PX to work in the various liquidity mining and vaulting programs.

PGFK Vaulting

PGFK holders will be able to claim a total of 154,000 PX through the initial vaulting period with additional long-tail reward opportunities.

In the beginning, PGFK vaults will be boosted to earn 27.5% of the total PX emission (~38,745 PX/month). This boost will last for four months and when the boost is over, PGFK holders will earn 5% of the total farm rewards (~2,106 PX/month).

We are not planning on continuing with the PGFK generation system given that we are removing xPGFK from circulation; therefore, rewards for every NFT will be equal moving forward.

Next Steps

We are opening the floor to feedback from the community that will be used to do a final iteration on the token conversion proposal. Once finalized, the proposal will be put to a vote to move forward with the conversion.

We realize that a transition like this can be a tricky balance to get right. Strategic shifts introduce change that requires compromise from all participants. While there may not be a perfect solution, we do believe this proposal represents a fair transition for our supporters.

Our team has put a lot of thought into the design of this system to be fair to all parties involved. We are excited about moving forward with our plan to deliver more value and innovation to the community and look forward to constructive feedback that helps us kickstart the PolyientX platform.

[BiggiePoppins]

A tricky transition to balance indeed.

As an investor, I am only one voice of many, so I hope to see more ideas and opinions shared before anything is written in stone.

The millions of dollars in rewards mentioned are hypothetical and represent the “top of the market” because their value has gone down substantially since.

PGT almost hit 1k back in March and I refused to sell because I wanted the privilege of my holdings to matter once Polyient launched.

Now PGT will be valued at $100.00 and in order to participate in governance you are asking me to provide liquidity with ETH? I am keen to see what your proposed PX<>gPX system will look like, but I will be hesitant to participate because there have been token changes in the past and I have no guarantee that there will not be more in the future.

I already had skin in the game and you are asking for more in order to have a voice in this new world.

What about the NFTs that were supposed to give us additional perks? The Polyient Queen and King and the UNI LP NFTs? Do these convert into anything or even have a place in this new world? I sure hope they do.

It remains to be seen whether this transition will hold the value touted in this proposal, but it is clear that the usability will not be the same.

Having a monopoly on PX production at the start means nothing when supply will be infinite and Vault investors and Whales can just come in and leave us in the dust.

This all sounds very confusing and its fairness to early investors feels lacking.

I would appreciate more clarity regarding the PX<>gPX system.

[Eleven]

I agree and think it’s underwhelming.

I have also held on to everything to support the ecosystem, and have been excited for launch. It seems those that sold at $1000 made out, and can buy back 10 times the amount of what they sold. Whereas people who have been patient and held on to support are at a disadvantage. Perhaps there should be a time factor implemented that would affect how much PX one receives.

Additionally, I’m not too excited about an unlimited supply. Given this supply and a 384% inflation in only the first year, these conversions seem very low.

Lastly, I am also curious about the PX<>gPX system.

[wmheng]

I think the token consolidation is in itself laudable. Rather than fragment into multiple tokens with separate use cases, one single token with multiple use cases is perhaps a better choice. I like the idea of gPX.

Having said that, I do have some questions and suggestions…

1. Calculations of Token compensation

With that in mind, we will be leveraging the going market rate for PGU, PGT and xPGFK when converting into PX.
|Token|Reference Value|FDT Market Cap|PX Allocation|
|PGU|$1.0|$360,000|19,810.10|
$360,000 / 19,810.1 = $18.17
|PGT|$100.0|$2,000,000|116,873.76|
$2,000,000 / 116,873.76 = $17.11
|xPGFK|$0.1|$76,000|4,441.20|
$76,000 / 4,441.2 = $17.11

How exactly did you guys get the following numbers? The only thing that I could make sense of is the Initial Supply = 19,810.1+116,873.76+4,441.2 = 141,125.06. What is FDT Market Cap? Fully Diluted Token Market Cap? If I take the FDT/# of tokens of PX per “pool”, the p-r-i-c-e is $18.17/PX for PGU vs $17.11/PX for PGT and xPGFK as per my calculations above. I suspect this is a typo. The other question is what bearing does the p-r-i-c-e of PGT/PGT/xPGFK have on the distribution? It seems to be based on a convenient number 1, 100, 0.1, but those are quite far from both current and historical p-r-i-c-e-s… So if you have used those to calculate the basis of the conversion, then I feel we really need to dig this deeper, and I suspect this is the case because of the following statement (PGU will receive 5.84 PX per 100 tokens, PGT holders will receive 584 PX per 100 tokens, etc.). The statement above seems to suggest the design p-r-i-c-e of PX is $17.12 (Eg. PGU = $100/5.84 = $17.12 which is why I suspect the $360,000 is a typo). It also suggests that there are 339,214 PGU (vs Max Supply 338,801?), 20012.6 PGT (vs Max Supply 20,000?) and 760,479 xPGFK (I find it difficult to confirm as it didn’t match to anything easy for me to verify who you are trying to compensate) tokens that will get the above compensation. I assume some were estimates and rounding, but some things need to be very accurate. So back to my point, the p-r-i-c-e used for convenience is very far from current p-r-i-c-e.

2. PX Tokenomics
   Is there a reason to introduce an unlimited supply token with inflationary supply? The first year is practically flooded with tokens (+350%!!!). Without a sink to absorb this huge amount of tokens supply, it will lead to immense sell pressure. The only use case for people to hold on to their PX is to stake to gPX and the draw and allure of staking needs to do so much better than the 3.5 times of liquidity that will be churned out. What about inflation past Year 3? I would suggest to consider changing to limited supply. As already mentioned by someone, having Monopoly on PX production at the start really means nothing, if there is no demand and use case.

3. Can you provide the split for the 40% to PGFK holders + Liquidity Farms? How much is PGFK holders and how much is Liquidity Farms? So that we get a better idea of what to expect…

4. This plan focuses on PGT, PGU and xPGFK. Just reiterating the comments made by another person what about those countless NFTs like Wendex, Poly Ant Queen and King etc. Will there be Vaults where you can stake them for some rewards or are they just practically gone with this change?

[pgt]

Really disappointed.

PGT should be much higher weighted for starters; the cop out of ‘we didn’t sell PGT’ is laughable, it’s been the main advertised means of having a voting say in Polyient’s ecosystem. You might not have sold it, but you pushed it as a means of having a non-dilutable method of governance and fee sharing in the ecosystem.

Also the inflation rate is ridiculous. Inflation rates that high are for liquidity mining projects that ‘fair launch’, i.e. don’t raise. You’ve raised what, 20,000 ETH? And now you want to bootstrap the new token economy with mega inflation? Why not either: bootstrap with the funds you raised from a) selling PGFKs (initial raise), PGT, PGU etc. (subsequently), or by merit of the product?

Basically, what you’re proposing is that current token holders, who bought into the non-inflationary mechanics, of PGT especially, get absolutely wrecked by inflationary rewards in terms of % share of the project, unless they put YET MORE ETH into this moneysink.

Why don’t you have some faith in your ability to create a product with demand, use your own raised funds to bootstrap the product, and be truly fair to people who have not only sunk a lot of money into this project, but even more in opportunity cost? Rather than doing some kind of quasi-fair-launch utilizing huge inflation DESPITE raising 20,000 ETH! That’s $46M USD at current prices…

Not to mention the other issues people have mentioned about PolyAnt Queens, Wendex etc.

Didn’t someone pay 30 ETH for a PolyAnt Queen? and many others smaller amounts. And they’ve just been forgotten about, totally disregarded. That ETH has appreciated quite a bit while Polyient have been pivoting and rebranding, and now they’ll be diluted by 400% (just in year 1!!) unless they sink yet more cash into a project that’s grossly underperformed pretty much everything else in this market.

Really unhappy with the proposal: PGT should be weighted more, inflation shouldn’t be anywhere near that high, shouldn’t be there at all really… (bootstrap with the funds we gave you in the raise!), and more commitment to token holders in general really.

A theory one might have is that the lack of commitment of funds from the initial raise directly to driving value to token holders might be why there’s so many tokens in the first place… Things didn’t seem to work out each time, so rather than addressing the core problem of Polyient not wanting to actually spend any of the raised cash to benefit token holders, just magic up more tokens from nowhere for a short term boost from an ever smaller group of people willing to sink cash into them. Which also explains why there’s now a need to change entirely, the circle of people willing to sink even more money into the project without a shred of financial return/success has dwindled.

Unhappy, but I hope things can be taken on board and rethought.

[DeFiSurfer]

This looks great @0x1f!! Very pleased with the direction of PolyientX so far and I’m looking forward to progressing in this space with you guys:) As an early PGFK and PGT holder, I understand you won’t be able to please everyone, but you guys are making the right moves and I’m excited to see more!!

[wurmlund]

This all makes sense to me.

As a holder of PGFK, PGT, PGU and even some xPGFK, I am excited to have a condensed token that plugs into actual DeFi applications.

From what I understand about the vaulting protocol, it makes sense to have an inflationary token and definitely would like to see more sinks in place to reduce supply as we go.

Given that the total market cap of all tokens is in the low millions combined, I don’t see how we can not have an inflationary mechanism in place to bring in more token holders. Otherwise, we’re going to be stuck with the same 500-1000 people holding a token that doesn’t appreciate in value. But that being said, maybe set a total cap after pre-determined amount of time? This should give token holders a north star and better understand their holdings relative to the inflation cycle.

Overall looks great and can’t wait for the launch!

[pgt]

because the team have sufficient funds to bootstrap without inflation. The inflation is going to existing token holders that put up more capital to the ecosystem, so not sure the point about restricting new token holders stands.

The point is that a lot of people have already invested a lot of cash here, and have effectively been burned by the inertia of the whole thing. If I’ve invested big and been patient, but now can’t commit more funds to the project, I’ll be diluted HARD in the first year, and my share of the project will dwindle to near zero despite investing huge amounts and being patient with the team.

near 400% inflation in year one is the problem, it destroys anyone’s investment who isn’t willing or able to commit more funds (because they believed in the team and already invested big). 5-10% per year is pretty normal, although like has been mentioned, the non-inflationary dynamics of PGT were a big reason for a lot of people to get involved, so not ideal…

From the large amount of feedback toward the ridiculous 400% inflation in Y1, hopefully a compromise can come about such that inflationary mechanics are more normal, 5-10%/yr.

TL;DR: At some point you have to drive economic value to the token via demand for the products rather than patching things up with printing, whether that’s new types of tokens or more of one type of token… if this extreme inflationary proposal goes through, the same problem will propagate as we have at the moment

Last point: newcomers to the ecosystem are undoubtedly going to look at how previous and early investors were treated, how they fared by investing in the ecosystem, and if they see that early investors got rekt I doubt they’ll want to get involved themselves.

The best marketing you can get is plentiful stories of happy, successful early investors and contributors.

[fly]

" Savvy users will be able to substantially grow their % control of the PX token economy by putting their PX to work in the various liquidity mining and vaulting programs. "

If this is the case then i’m happy with the proposal. I think the conversion and vaulting will benefit users paying attention and interacting with the platform.

The 4 month boost on PGFK is great, but the drop to 5% feels very steep without details on the long-tail reward possibilities. I would not want the 4month boost to be reduced.
Will the PGFK still provide discount on NFT purchase in the marketplace and the perpetual nft airdrops (yield boosters++)?

[BiggiePoppins]

This will require you to put up additional funds in the form of ETH/PX LP tokens. Nothing has been said regarding single asset staking. After the boosted yield timeframe, PGFK will be useless.

[Punjab]

What if everything converted to gPX (PGT, PG, xPGFK’s )and staking gPX to vaults created the PX token. Maybe still have the .55 for eth blocks for PFKG’s. Then put a cap on the Px token and gPX then only gets some transaction costs… Or you create a ton of value with initial distribution of gPX with burn mechanism converting a huge amount of PX (to burn) to create another gPX token that will then deflate the output of PX per gPX. I would assume at some point inflation on gPX will start to happen. Just rethinking the whole thing out of the box, if anything might be an idea in here.

[pgt]

Let’s do it this way:

We can’t beat around the bush here, we know that, due to sentiment, a lot of people (a large subset of the token holder base) just want to get out as soon as the token conversion happens and any positive sign of life occurs with the price. I think anyone can agree there. Therefore, we need to reward those that don’t exhibit this behaviour and punish those that do. Here’s my plan:

First of all, conversions to be done at TWAP or VWAP (time or volume weighted average price) over the last 6 months, not just arbitrarily defined numbers for each of PGT, PGU, xPGFK etc.

When you choose to convert your tokens, you get a choice: Either token swap to PX (unrestricted, normal PX tokens), or vPX; i.e. vested PX tokens, I suggest a 1 year rolling lockup period. This model draws a lot of inspiration from veCRV, by the way.

If you choose vPX, you are single asset staking and will receive PX as staking rewards to the tune of overall inflation across the network (so, in the original example, 358% per year), such that your share of the network cannot be diluted and remains the same (an important point that was given as feedback from various members, especially PGT holders!). You also receive the fee-sharing from PolyientX that was planned, of course.

If you choose PX, then you have the inflationary asset, unstaked and unrestricted. You can sell it, LP it etc., but it’s not producing a return in and of itself, constantly being diluted. If a lot of people choose to go with vPX (vested PX), then PX holders can make a lot from having unrestricted PX that can be LPed, as the APY will be extremely high.

While vPX and PX would be ‘different’, they’re still the same token, and it’s the same as veCRV vs CRV, xSUSHI vs SUSHI, etc.

It allows those who like the non-inflationary tokenomics to lock their tokens up and ensure a constant share of the network, and those who aren’t bothered and/or want the flexibility to sell, LP, etc., to do so.

It also gives the team flexibility to have some inflation to bootstrap, although I do still think they need to do this mainly with the funds raised rather than relying too much on inflation.

Main points to recap:

Conversion not to be done at the specified rates, as people have mentioned PGT holders get a bad deal given the length of time it traded very high compared to current price, and true believers who held on would be rekt.

Give people the chance to avoid dilution from inflation, by single side staking their PX, even with a restricted lockup to ensure this supply isn’t constantly dumped. 1 year lock is my suggestion, but parameters up for debate

Still emphasis on Polyient using raised funds to bootstrap, that’s what they’re for, don’t rely on inflation too much as if this is a fair launch from 0 project, it’s not - you have plenty of cash, use it for the benefit of holders and the ecosystem! Don’t be stingy with it!

[BiggiePoppins]

This is the most sensible proposal yet, thank you for commenting.

[RUSHH]

yeah Its fine let me farm pls
also let me stake the boosters in their own vault dont discard them completely atleast throw them some pittance !

[kengee]

Was just wondering if we’ll be able to convert our $xPGFKs back to $PGFKs?

Personally, I only converted to support the ecosystem. Understand that those PGFKs were burnt so, might be a bit tricky to source new ones

Cheers

[pgt]

Second thoughts:

If PolyientX is going to aggregate a bunch of other projects underneath it which will drive value to it, why not just go YFI style and convert all Polyient tokens to PX, with a fixed supply, no inflation. We don’t need it.

PGT and PGFK convert at equal value, but PGFK holders get to keep their PGFK (PGT is converted to PX and burned, but PX airdropped one time to PGFK holders)
PGU convert at 1/250 of this rate

Either convert Booster NFTs or buy them back and discontinue them for the same amount they were sold for initially. If not sold initially, then convert to PX at some goodwill gesture rate.

APEIN and other collected fees from other projects that use PolyientX can then be used to: 1) be distributed to PX stakers, or 2) buyback and burn PX

Let the sub-brand tokens (like APEIN, and other projects that use PolyientX) be the inflationary layer. There’s no need for PX to be inflationary, and we want to make it a coveted gold standard token: scarce, and an entitlement to revenues. Not something that slowly declines in value as the token inflates its supply (inevitable, happens every time.)

No need to inflate the supply at all. Let PX be a fixed claim on the PolyientX ecosystem’s revenues. Just drive enough revenue to the stakers through sub-brands and external projects using PolyientX ecosystem, and everything else takes care of itself.