Actually minting a new token would be much simpler (and cleaner) than changing tokenomics of the existing one.
We already have ckBTC - BTC twin, on the way is ckETH - ETH twin + ckERC20 - <any>ERC20 twin… - which are twins of tokens from other blockchains.
I think it would be much easier to use same logic/code (where relevant…) to create SNS1 twin on the same blockchain/network (ICP) - called DKP, while changing 1:1 ratio to 1:100000000 (for example, 
).
- that would basically mean that on ICP exists only a single SNS1 base token, which can be referenced by 2 symbols/names/and-amounts-of-units (
:
)
- both fully functional, with all ICP advantages, living it’s own (independent) life (until conversion - minting/burning)
- creating new use-cases for
token wrapping
- everyone is happy
But indeed this is just an idea, it’s up to you guys how will these things be done, wishing you best of luck in either case (CCing also @borovan)!
Mentioning also @Manu (who I believe is closely involved (also) in ckBTC development) to save time and effort of stakeholders in case that such ICP-Native-Token-Wrapping would be not realistic 