Dragginz DKP (SNS-1) Tokenomics

[Yeenoghu]

If this route is taken before changing the decimal value to zero it might be a good idea to adjust the fee. Otherwise I could see where when the decimal is removed anyone moving tokens is going to pay 1k transfer fee until a proposal is passed to bring the fee down if value is held quantitively in the canister in this way.

[bytesun]

I don’t understand, if you want to change SNS-1(name, symbol, supply…) totally, why don’t just launch a new SNS DAO? why bother to take over original SNS-1?

[plsak]

I seriously doubt that

dragginzgame

[borovan]

seemed like a good idea at the time

[borovan]

@levi

Right now the sns-1/dkp ledger canister has 1-trillion token-quantums (minus the burned transfer fees). The decimal places are just for aesthetics and have no relevance in the canister contract code. If the goal is to move the decimal point for easy viewing, you can just change the ‘decimals’ variable to 0 without minting any new tokens.

Yes, thank you! I think we’ll do this and have I guess 3 decimal places?

[Thyassa]

Me too, it just seems too complicated if we do that

[plsak]

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

[levi]

Awesome, sounds good.

[borovan]

We are mostly there, just waiting for Tendy to sign off on the decision.

[plsak]

Great! If waiting too long just give me a shout - I (or anyone else) can announce the Tendy sign off on the decision.

[IC_Maximillion]

This might be off topic, are there also plans to list the token on a mainstream exchange?
Or is that not possible with a sns token?

[Thyassa]

It may come in time, but it isn’t something we will push for. The price of SNS-1/DKP doesn’t really mean anything to us right now. (Contrary to some rather amusing conspiracy FUD I have seen)

We are just focusing on building and will be self funding everything for the foreseeable.

Will have update on tokemonics decision shortly as meeting with legal folks later today to confirm what is and isn’t possible.

[Sawyer]

@Thyassa

It may come in time, but it isn’t something we will push for. The price of SNS-1/DKP doesn’t really mean anything to us right now. (Contrary to some rather amusing conspiracy FUD I have seen)

Could you shed some light on how the price might mean something in future if it doesn’t mean anything right now

[IC_Maximillion]

Ok sounds good.
Ive seen a post idea about just moving the decimal points, if that would be possible.
This sounds like the easiest idea if done right.

Last question: Any kind of release date in mind? For a Beta version or something?