Proposal for a 100:1 ILV Token Split to Boost Trading Volume and Market Attention

[supple olive]

In the evolving landscape of cryptocurrency, strategic decisions are crucial for maintaining competitiveness and market relevance. With this in mind, I propose a significant change for Illuvium: a 100:1 coin split of ILV tokens. This idea is not without precedent in the industry. Notably, MakerDAO (MKR) is undergoing a substantial 24,000:1 coin split, setting a trend for major projects. Such splits are commonplace in traditional finance (tradfi) as well, with giants like Apple and Amazon having executed several stock splits. The rationale behind this move is clear: by making ILV more accessible at a lower price point per token, we can potentially increase trading volume and enhance the project's visibility in the market. This proposal is intended to open a discussion on the feasibility and potential benefits of the coin split, inviting insights and considerations from the Illuvium community and council. Let's explore this opportunity to propel ILV to the forefront of the crypto market, ensuring it receives the recognition and engagement it deserves.

[upbeat ridge]

I don't think this is unprecedented by any means. I'll wait to weigh in on the pros and cons until more of the community does, but another example of this working really well is with $MC -> $BEAM. One of the main reasons the Merit Circle DAO voted to do this was so that they could reset the chart and erase the last bull run spike, and it worked.

[echo cipher]

great idea, but in contrary to stocks it is easier to just buy fragments of a token than it is to buy fragments of a stock 🙂

[upbeat ridge]

I think this could also psychologically benefit revdis. Instead of someone claiming 0.01 ILV for revdis, if they are getting 1 whole token, it just feels more real, significant, meaningful.

[lethal thistle]

personally I feel this isn't needed at all and I don't want the $ILV token to be re-branded from a token split either

[supple olive]

also i track 30 gamefi projects, all of which are sub $10, prime is the second largest that i track at 9$, but most are sub $1 ...im sure there are some games out there that i dont track that are larger, but still shows MOST coins are sub $1

[lethal thistle]

Illuvium will be the reference for web3 gaming just like bitcoin is for crypto

the cons outweighs the pros on this for me

[supple olive]

what are the cons?

only con I can think of is taking away time from the team to get this done, and potential complexity with the staking contracts

[lethal thistle]

already said the main one for me which is you change the token name

[supple olive]

oh i am not suggesting to change the token name. is it possible to do a split with out changing the token name?

[upbeat ridge]

I also would say changing the token name is a bad idea, but you should be able to do it without changing the token name on Ethereum. Some chains make it more difficult, like Solana.

[median wedge]

I'd wait till rewards are done and we are staking on layer 2 but I think the team wants to do this(at least aaron). Staking v3 could include a token split.

Might as well do 1000:1 really

[hexed spade]

If something like this wasn't beneficial it wouldn't be invented. I've seen multiple cases in which it did wonders. Tesla, Merit Circle.

[ionic dagger]

Its something we have brought up in token chat many times, I think that we should do at least 1:1000 but the amounts can be discussed. When we spoke to @grim hound and @ancient bridge were supportive of the idea. I also drafted a proposal and was due to post it myself. So you beat me to it, I am very much in support of it.

They did say that it would need to be end of staking rewards.

[supple olive]

when is the end of staking rewards?

[ionic dagger]

@grim hound own words on Token split discussions.

[open nacelle]

Personally I'm indifferent here, but if the community shows up to support this we can get a formal IIP written up and submitted. @supple olive

[supple olive]

what qualifies as community support?

[open nacelle]

For this channel there is not actual number for upvotes. More like get feedback and adjust your idea if needed. Next step would be to write up draft of a proposal for #1126838877429182506 From there 25 upvotes will send it to a vote per your request. Seeing as you will need 25 upvotes on the next step 25 upvotes here is a good starting point. Hope that makes sense ha

[distant valve]

I don’t think the blockchain team has time for these things. We really want open beta out asap now

[median wedge]

I'm with fraggy. I don't really see the rush here, might as well wait to draft IIP after open beta. What would be the benefit of doing this sooner then later?

[versed tendon]

Per @ionic dagger above, the team has said it would need to come after staking rewards are over, which better also be after open beta.

I agree with you both that we need open beta as a higher priority, but don't see that as a reason to vote against this because it clearly needs to come after release. We can't just vote for #1 priorities and ignore items that are important to be included in the longer term roadmap.

[candid dove]

Can someone explain to me how this would affect the original ILV price?

If at all.

[distant valve]

People new to crypto look at ILV and say oh no, it's too late, it's already $100
When you split token, 100:1 price would be $1 / token.
Instead of 1 token worth $100, you'll have 100 worth $1

[candid dove]

So the tokens I have would be worth a lot kess

What's the main benefit if ILV is not used in game? Just more holders?

[distant valve]

They would be worth less but you would have a lot more so for current holders, value stays the same.
When new people look at the token and see how cheap it is, maybe they buy faster.
More people buying, price goes up

[versed tendon]

People would rather buy one $1 ILV than .01 $100 ILV

[candid dove]

Ah okay. So if I had 10 tokens it can become 100?

[distant valve]

With this proposal you would have 1000

[candid dove]

Yeah that makes sense.

[candid dove]

Okay cool.

[exotic seal]

this is a great point, and might be the best argument!

[exotic seal]

Token Split!!

[shadow zealot]

If you do it (which I don’t think is necessary but I don’t really care one way or another)… do it once and do it big… do the 24000:1…

Shoot throw another zero on for the hell of it

[shadow zealot]

This can be looked at as a bad thing also though. As if people are trying to hide old charts. Not that I agree as I know them and they aren’t doing anything shady but I can see the POV

[distant valve]

69420:1

[chilly stream]

There's probably some research that could be consulted as to what the best ratio would be, and it almost certainly would have something to do with people's imperfect understanding of numbers. Targeting something sub- $0.01 as a resultant token price would be my expectation for what would yield the best result.

[shadow zealot]

“1 cent incoming”

[distant valve]

$0,000001 / ILV imagine the profits once you get to $1800 ATH

Noobs will just say it's over instead of hey cheap token, let's go

[shadow zealot]

https://tenor.com/view/based-uh-hello-based-department-based-department-american-psycho-patrick-bateman-gif-22458382

[chilly stream]

It sounds a bit silly, but people honestly think this kind of stuff all the time. Many leading zeroes removes a lot of people's tangible comprehension of value and what token prices make sense.

[distant valve]

I understand where people are coming from but I think this would be needed to be done before token was at $1800. Imo it's too late now

[chilly stream]

You're referring to if we used the same token name and a low price was on the same chart as $1800 ILV?

[distant valve]

Isn't that what a token split is?

[chilly stream]

It can be, but it doesn't have to be.

[distant valve]

Well if you do it, good idea to replace te token by a new one so you have a new chart then

[chilly stream]

Agreed, that's a significant portion of the psychological value.

[shadow zealot]

This is what I was saying about MC/BEAM… if you do a new token, yes you get new charts which would likely need to be the case in this situation. So then the problems arise of how that looks to outsiders saying “well they are hiding their old charts” etc. also you need a cut off date for claiming these tokens because you don’t want ILV and New ILV forever for the obvious problems that causes. This then will surely cause some amount of people to lose out on their investment unless you possibly just airdrop everyone I guess. Then you also have to get the new token re listed/approved on all the previous exchanges you are currently on - Binance, Coinbase, Crypto.com etc

[distant valve]

Hopefully this shows people some easy token split idea isn't always as easy as they think.
There would be A LOT of work that has to be put into this. And we didn't even mention writing new contracts, security risks, ...

[shadow zealot]

Also I’ll add, everyone would need to unstake, all LPs have to remove liquidity, migrate to new token and re make liquidity with new token… restake… maybe some ppl don’t even do this because of the hassle so could effect lp in the end (speculation)

[distant valve]

Staking v4? 😄

[ionic dagger]

The post I was trying to put up kept getting flagged for spam/scam lol.

[supple olive]

are there any token split examples that did NOT change the name? I think this would be the path of least resistance and maybe would enable token contracts to remain staked?

[ionic dagger]

Binary X did it I think BNX was the token.

[ionic dagger]

Need to sell Illuvium the studio hard
Issue is, Illuvium is our game name
I think with the token split we should rename the token and the project studio etc
Illuvium is the game series we make, if we want to be like riot or Blizzard we shouldn't call ourselves our game name.

Nintendo wasn't called Mario or W/E I think we could do really really well with some revamp and new token.

[honest jacinth]

I've seen it as Illuvium is the studio and world name. Zero, Arena, Overworld and Beyond are game names.

[ionic dagger]

You boot up a game it's called Illuvium-........

I think people look at us as a game and not a studio. We are priced as a great AAA quality interconnected web 3 gaming experience.

I don't think as much a studio, although the intent.

Game name being zero,arena and overworld as stand alone game names doesn't make sense without the illuvium part.

I really do feel we should keep that approach but rename the token and studio etc, it could be on theme doesn't have to be something outlandish.

Just my opinion.

[honest jacinth]

In past AMAs the founders have called Illuvium a studio. We are Web3. We can't change our name without people freaking out thinking it is for a nefarious reason.

[ionic dagger]

I dont think thats true, easily explained.

[versed tendon]

Studio name is Illuvium Labs and you don't find that name called out many places

[ionic dagger]

People say Illuvium when they think of our game. Any awards we get nominated for or win it's Illuvium.

We are looked at easily as a game and not a studio.

Illuviums great but the vision is bigger than just one game, a connected experience doesn't mean we can't deviate away from the Illuvium themed lore one day if we wanted to build something else.

Nor mean we shouldn't think about different ways to better the project.

[wispy crown]

How this split would be done? Could we save the ILV ticker ? Would it need an airdrop to holders via claim button on the website or similar?

[glossy pendant]

Not totally opposed to it but things to consider: 1) going to a V2 has been super annoying and confusing in the two tokens I’ve been involved with who have done this and exchanges don’t always facilitate 2) gas fees should be considered 3) some people consider low token supply as a positive for investing

[solid cobalt]

This way sounds pretty impossible to make work without people getting insane value rekt across so many many platforms.

Probably would have to be a new token with there being some pretty specific timelines.

But honestly it’s not my area of expertise. I believe Merit Circle replaced their original token.

[frosty locust]

It just seems way too complicated and the team probably won't be able to do it without issues for not enough benefit.

[runic vault]

Benefit

[ionic dagger]

So not complicated for many and massively successful for projects in the space but too complicated and not enough benefit just for us. 1) What

[frosty locust]

Can we hire the teams that successfully did this with other projects?>

[ionic dagger]

So your issue isnt the idea or general premise but that you think we are not capable as a project of pulling it off?

[frosty locust]

Just because I watch NBA players dunk a basketball and I also play basketball , doesn't mean that I can in fact dunk a basketball.

[frosty locust]

This seems like something that would need to be pulled off flawlessly or it can end up being a shitstorm of a problem.
And I just don't like risk
Maybe I am underestimating the benefit that we would get compared to the risk involved.

[ionic dagger]

It's a pivot and something large for the project, but not really outside the norms from crypto and also stock tbh RE: a split. Doesn't mean because it takes work we shouldn't do it.

[glossy pendant]

I’m sure the team can do it just fine, it just is the holders that can get confused. For example, on GALA, when they switched to V2 everyone had to get their tokens off exchanges and into a wallet. If someone was holding on Coinbase and didn’t know how to use a wallet, they sold. If someone didn’t hear the announcement to move the tokens, they didn’t get V2. I’m not sure if there is an appeal process but it seemed like a pain and made the token price drop a lot

[solid cobalt]

Seems to me like it’s more likely that it was the market cap increase that made GALA token price go down. But I don’t really know.

[ionic dagger]

Nobody is suggesting we change the supply so the market cap changes at all. Splitting would give us the same market cap and FDV.

Just comes with a bunch of benefits.

Regarding people worried about it being looked at poorly/scummy nobody called MC scummy and Beam is one of the best gamefi projects. Same for Maker doing the split soon.

[shadow zealot]

“Nobody called them scummy” - you watched that same video I did lol you sent it to me ser

[ionic dagger]

He calls everyone scummy except ICP 😂

[glossy pendant]

Yeah it was probably a combination of both, but I also heard influencers bash V2 and publicly sell because of it

I’m really not totally against a split but just want to point out things to consider

I think it would be easier if we weren’t on major exchanges

[oblique crescent]

Every single time a token that I was holding did a v2 I lost money. Every single time. Gala was the most recent one, and that turned off a lot of people.

[versed tendon]

Are the V2s you went through the same as token splits, or is this something different?

In stocks people generally like holding through a split

[oblique crescent]

Not the same as this. One problem is with exchanges . Some of them wont go along with a v2 and it can throw everything off. With Gala, Coinbase didn't do anything to help holders on the exchange and people lost money. Another problem is when you airdrop the v2 to wallets, does it cost you a gas fee? I saw that some people only had a small amount in their wallets with Saitama, so they didn't even bother giving people their tokens. Only gave the v2 to those holding a certain amount. The v2 with Luffy was fine but there was a major selloff and it never recovered since. People don't like their tokens being messed with. Too many scammers have made people on edge.

[solid cobalt]

Thanks for sharing

[supple olive]

i think its worth a proposal and a technical evaluation and from there the council could make a decision. i think we can all agree the LEAST technically intense path would be the best option, including NOT changing the ticker, and the team needs to explore wha the implications are of this change and then from there the council could decide if its worth it

[cedar veldt]

IMHO this is an unnecessary distraction to consider before open beta. We need to stay laser focussed on launch and see how game DAU and revdis goes, rather than $%^#ing around with the token right now or taking up the team’s time to look into such a proposal.

[ionic dagger]

Nobody is trying to shoe horn this in pre open beta. If you are to get something done, you don't wait until you deliver on the other areas. Planning and discussion in advance, pros and cons. Does a lot of the leg work for when the time comes to address such a topic.

[cedar veldt]

Sure but even getting the team to do preliminary activities takes time and resources. There will always be more work requested of the team to do than is possible (like all companies :-). So it comes down to basic portfolio planning and assessing value of return for different work items. So if the team get involved in this, then what do those team members NOT do? That’s all.

[runic vault]

the project need to focus on how to manage token price. i wont be surprised if we need to do another raise.
some people are already managing their expectation on revdis. and we are pushing DAU to restore investors confidence.
anything to pump the token is good

[oak kiln]

VanEck advisor Gabor Gurbacs explains that “owning a full share feels better than owning 0.001 Bitcoin,” when discussing the psychology of investors, before the deadline for the Bitcoin ETF this week.

Follow the world’s rules. Split this token by 10000.

[oblique crescent]

So you basically want to make Illuvium like a meme coin so people fomo in. Wont work. You're just gonna get lost in the crowd of gaming projects snowballing into web3 with similar supplies. Since a lot of people find you by looking for projects with a low supply. Imagine that happening with bitcoin. "People will feel better buying bitcoin if they can afford a whole coin". Yeah right. What makes Bitcoin so attractive is the low supply. People don't see value in things that are plentiful.

[runic vault]

if we reset the chart, degens may think "oh this chart hasnt pumped"

[lethal thistle]

you can't reset a chart without changing the token name can you?

[runic vault]

why would you not change the ticker

[lethal thistle]

I wouldn't wanna change it, the ticker id is your identity and illuvium is known as ILV

[runic vault]

theres another angle we can pursue. do a game studio token instead of just a game title

heck we prob can develop our own chain

maybe call it IBG

a studio that develops games, movies, launchpad, esport teams, steaming service, marketplace, etc all integrated

[lethal thistle]

well we still got a long way till we get to that point...
And I already see ILV as a studio that's why you have the illuvium games called illuvium overworld, illuvium arena, illuvium zero and illuvium beyond

[runic vault]

you may have seen it, but the idea of token split is to attract new investors

token split and moving to a new ticker is not for existing investors

[supple olive]

pretending like a token split wouldnt be a net positive for liquidity is laughable

like come on guys, obviously theres a unit bias in crypto and stocks

[topaz topaz]

i think it makes sense. it changes nothing of the actual token, only the mindset of people. people like holding more of a token even if its a fake feeling lol

trying to imagine a new investor comparing a $1000 ilv or 23m tokens of some other thing

[median wedge]

As I see it.

Pros:

• Improved accessibility : lower token price will make governance more accessible. More people will buy more people will hold. more people will have access to the DAO and Illuvium governance.
• Increased Liquidity : Increased liquidity facilitates markets, better price discovery less volatility simply due to volume.
• Higher token value : Psychological appeal of a higher token count can make the token seem more affordable and more people will buy. (DOT increased 100% days after 100:1 token split)

Cons:

• Uncertainty - unknown if it will increase token value. unknown if we will have bugs in any system the team creates.
• Confusion - we are adding confusion to the charts and would be harder to read
• Complexity - we will be adding complexity to current systems (how is staking going to work, how are the exchanges going to handle any split)
• Losing unique feature of the token - small token supply is seen as a plus to some investors

Think this discussion is good for the community but we really should just wait till closer to staking v3 and after the game is launched to really dig into a token split discussion with the team.

[supple olive]

should we move this to proposal? or too much hate lmao

[hexed spade]

I'd love to read the professional opinion of a blockchain dev, that would be implementing this if it's approved. I don't see how we can decide on something like this without consulting on it.

[runic vault]

https://tenor.com/view/do-it-shia-la-beouf-flame-gif-4445204

[runic vault]

fine, we'll schedule for next week

[runic vault]

are u considering a new token or just the split?

[supple olive]

I think just the split if technically possible and technically the road of least resistance

[ancient bridge]

Good morning, what questions do you have for Blockchain?

They're focused on high priorities right now and shouldn't be disturbed unless necessary.

• Fuel Exchange
• Scripting for PB4 Test Environments
• Sepolia migration clean-up & Open Beta Collections

There is nothing overly complex about a token split, this should become a proposal and pushed to IMC and Councils for discussion and eventual prioritization.

This is simply a question of prioritization, timing and business strategy 🙂

[runic vault]

[hexed spade]

Maybe what delays will this cause?
Is yield farming going to be affected?
I'm pretty sure many questions will arise and I was implying that we can't put proposals for token split exactly because the team has quite a lot on their plate.
If you think this is reasonable/simple addition to the IMC/Team attention at this point, thank you for speaking out on it.

[distant valve]

I don't know Nick, you made it sound a lot easier than it really is

[shadow zealot]

I def think its more complex personally than not being complex at all... for all the reasons I mentioned previously that dont even have to do with blockchain side of it

[ionic dagger]

https://tenor.com/view/so-many-zeroes-kenneth-parcell-30rock-oh-my-so-much-money-gif-19651886

[shadow zealot]

and more zeros if we do

[ancient bridge]

**what delays will this cause? **

That's a question for Admins, IMC and is a matter of prioritization. The Blockchain Team execute on the roadmap we give them.

Is yield farming going to be affected?

Again, a question better posed to Kieran, Aaron who can lean on Kain as well as reaching out to teams who have gone through this process.

I'm not saying it's completely without complexity or effort, I'm saying we're not experimenting here... there is a clear set of steps we can work through to deliver on the business decision.

Right now, the Blockchain Team have a clear set of priorities to get us to Open Beta (revenue generation) which may trump a sudden decision to split the token.

Therefore best to escalate to Kieran, IMC and external councils for consultation before pulling the developers into a discussion that may or may not eventuate.

[vapid mural]

One of the best things of the Token was that there are only 10 million around. That's a benefit not a disadvantage.

[fiery elm]

business psychology says otherwise, we should collect data on what research is out there on this topic and imo if this will be done, it should be a low priority for the team

[glossy pendant]

I think this is definitely true in stocks but crypto is a little different because of bitcoin… for example Jake Gordon Crypto 53k followers made a video about gaming coins a day ago citing one of the best things about ILV as the “low supply”

[ionic dagger]

Many well known projects have successfully done splits.

[plush stag]

What reasons did he mention that this is a good thing?

[fiery elm]

We shouldnt make decisions based on some random twitter guy

[glossy pendant]

Lol i am not saying not to do it or to base a decision off of one guy. I am only saying that having a low token supply like BTC is considered good by a lot of people. It’s one of the reasons people buy QNT, and this video is one example someone who bought ILV for the low supply. I’m sure he it not the only person who thinks this way. But I think that anyone who buys a token based off of low supply or high supply and not market cap is naive

I think if the Illuvium team thinks a split is a good idea we should do the split. I trust them. But I think we should realize this will be a negative for some people (even if you don’t agree with their logic). I know it is technically possible, but people love to complain and say things like “they are increasing the token supply! This will ruin all holders!” without understanding they are being dumb

[candid dove]

I feel there is a negative as well. I'd like to see a full report on both positive and negative examples of both. Definitely agree this should be done slowly.
Perhaps even cases for slow and fast would be good to be able to base decisions off.

[ionic dagger]

Plenty of examples have been given for successful splits. Yet to hear of one well known split gone bad. Gala doesnt count as they increased the supply with the split etc.

[oblique crescent]

If its a yes, let me know so I can move my money to a different project.

There's no reason to do this other than to steal some of the liquidity cause your project must be running out of money.

[plush stag]

Can you elaborate on how liquidity gets stolen with a token split?

[oblique crescent]

If there's any price difference after the switch then you know they stole it. Unless they revoked ownership of the token they can still access the liquidity.
And they obviously didn't if they can change the tokenomics at will.

[plush stag]

Ofcourse there is a price difference, thats the point of a split, right?
Not too Deep in the Tech behind it, but i guess there are ways to do it, since other Projects did it aswell, no?

[oblique crescent]

I'm obviously talking about an overall drop. I know to run away from token migrations of any sort. I've seen too much shady stuff over the years.
You're supposed to sort all of that stuff before you launch the token.

[oblique crescent]

Yeah, its a good way to pull the wool over peoples eyes.

[chilly stream]

Liquidity isn't held by Illuvium, it's primarily in a liquidity pool on Sushi. No one can access and/or steal your liquidity unless they get access to your seed phrases, or the contract to provide liquidity is somehow compromised.

It does sound like you've seen some shady stuff, and fair enough to be wary, but what you've outlined here doesn't make sense.

[wide cove]

I'd rather rename the games.

We already have Overworld, Arena and Zero.

We could give them flashier names that don't require 'Illuvium' in front

That being said we dont need to do things exactly like Blizzard. The less name change the less SEO I need to deal with 😛

[runic vault]

dont forget Beyond

[wide cove]

Thats the one I think we can keep just as 'Beyond'

[ionic dagger]

Agree, you could do that absolutely. Although with a studio name like Illuvium, we can only ever make Illuvium games. It's like Gamefreak being called Pokemon. If you want to make a different game with different lore, it doesn't make sense. Can't imagine it would look right if pokemon launched an FPS not based within the Pokemon world/IP

[wide cove]

Hmmmm I suppose if the word Illuvium is heavily featured in lore and what not

[ancient ridge]

If we want pomp and dump, then go with the split but if we want to grow this supply is ok, is to expensive? The same was btc eth and another token, they are expensive but people buy it! The reputation take years to build, one wrong move it’s enough to destroyed the reputation. Also this proposal is to soon, why is not good supply? Because is not a meme?didn’t start to share the “dividends” , the game is not realese to see real impact…why do you want to destroyed this project…have faith, patience. From beginner was a good supply, we was proud that is a small supply and now isn’t good…go back to “genesis” to see the first convention ama,s etc.

[burnt lantern]

I think a token split should be kept in the back pocket for when things are becoming dire, a break glass in case of emergency. For now Illuvium seems relatively healthy with plenty of catalysts this year.

[fleet crag]

You dont split when things are looking bleak, you split when things are looking super bullish.

[oblique crescent]

Things are looking super bullish right now. Maybe something bad is about to happen.

[oblique crescent]

I've seen teams drain liquidity pools when migrating to different chains.. I don't see how you can't do what you want with your token if you set up the contract to have full control. When i use token sniffer one of the red flags they have listed is when the liquidity isn't locked. And another red flag is when the team still owns the token, aka has the rights to modify the contract. Any team that still owns the contract can modify it to their benefit. Its up to you as the investor to read the contract, but most people don't. That's how they can lose money.

[runic vault]

i never read, i see green i buy

[runic vault]

@supple olive are you planning to propose an IIP?

[supple olive]

idk this post got muh hate

[runic vault]

just let me know if you want to

[static estuary]

Thanks for raising this and planting the seed with the community, 29 upvotes is more then I thought we would get.

[supple olive]

lets do it

[ionic dagger]

https://tenor.com/view/do-it-get-to-work-gif-21630516

[runic vault]

i sent friend request

[oblique crescent]

Call me a fascist if you want but decentralization gives a voice to stupid people, so I'm kind of against it.
You can't assume a majority vote will ever consist of the smart ones.

[supple olive]

youre proving my point, stupid people are the majority, and stupid people like “cheap” coins

[fleet crag]

I wouldn't say stupid, simply inexperienced.
Everyone talking like they haven't been there. We was all new at some point and in a lot of cases made the same false assumptions.

The simple fact is, the majority of people entering the market and purchasing ILV in the next bull will be new and likely inexperiened.
We know that token price absolutely will effect their buying decisions in a lot of instances.
By catering to this large demographic, we maximise the amount of investment into the token/project and players into the game as it is the very same audience.

The split is more about maximising potential in the most opportune moment. If we don't do the split, we will be leaving a lot of cash/players on the table.

[ionic dagger]

Completely agree.

[static estuary]

Haha I thought people who didn't want the token split were being called stupid because they didn't understand unit price bias Ooops.

[oblique crescent]

I think retail will want to spend more to have a whole token whereas if they had a bunch of tokens for less $, they'd be happier spending less cause they feel like they are getting more.
So that would backfire and cause people to not pump the price up as much.

[ionic dagger]

You think* is the key here. Price bias is a well studied reality at this point. Sure everyones opinions matter but facts over feelings tbh.

[static estuary]

One of the reasons for Minecraft's popularity is it's ability to run on shitty machines, the lowest common denominator can use the product.

One of the reasons for Apple's popularity is grandma can use it, the lowest common denominator can use the product.

Do we want to be elitist and call people stupid for not understanding how market cap is calculated? Or do we want to cater for our lowest common denominator and have a token that's appealing to those with unit price bias?

[glossy prism]

1000:1 or 10000:1 would definitely be easier on the eye for casual investors and it would make revdis easier to read and track as missionpoole said.

[candid dove]

I think it's probably a good move.
The system of whole numbers and feeling like you are progressing is in gaming.

Imagine leveling up.ooo5 after playing for hours, it would feel like you have to play for ever, even if the value is the same.
Level 5 is better than level .ooo5

[shadow zealot]

Add 3 more zeros

[ancient ridge]

To be made the following supply** 10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000**... everybody will be happy. All the people will have millions of Illuvium token, and all galaxies will buy this token because it has a "beautiful" supply and will be accessible. I am being sarcastic because you only think of yourself, only to make money. "you" don't want to believe in the game and in the team, to give them a chance to show us how they plan this beautiful raid.

[ancient ridge]

money it's money. i don care if i have 100 $ or 500 RON ( my nation bill), i care what i buy......also when you look at the ilv token you look how value it's in $,

[ionic dagger]

I think your confused, a token split doesn't increase the supply %. It's not like you print new tokens and dilute the project so current investors lose value.

Investors will have the same % of ownership they had before.

[solid cobalt]

That’s some pretty harsh accusations and a lot of 0 spam. Please tone it down a little bit. We strive for a more respectful debate.

[gritty mural]

I think a token split adds too much confusion to an already hard to understand (not bad) ecosystem. But I’m also not an expert when it comes to these kinds of things so I’ll let the big brains speak. It does come off as very degenish I will say 🤔

[glossy prism]

Nah, don't want ultra shitcoin/memecoin territory.

[shadow zealot]

I mean.... it accomplishes everything supporters are wanting. No?

[glossy prism]

In my head it's hard to track value when it's like $0.00009 a coin - that's why shitcoins do it, there's complete confusion and hard to grasp the value of an investment. $10 invested and you get a million coins.

Where as a 1000:1 or 10000:1 gives $0.09 or $0.009, which are easy to track and round. Roughly 10c or 1c a coin etc.

Also someone asks how much is this illuvium? Errr its zero point zero zero zero zero dollars. Not very functional.

[shadow zealot]

Yeah understandable.

[thick plaza]

100:1 sounds good. agree on unit bias.

[abstract dock]

hate the idea, the whole 'moxie' is that there is only 9 million tokens, plus you will just become another shitcoin full of shorts and laughed out of existance

really think we need to focus on game, this idea shit is going to the birds, did we forget the focus... "good game"

[fossil flint]

If we can appeal to a wider audience with the split then why would we not. And I completely agree that we need to take unit price bias into account especially when onboarding the masses. It’ll be easier on the eyes for a newbie coming in to the ecosystem in my opinion

My only reservations come from my tokens that are currently staked but unlocked, how would we go about solving that issue without forcing me to relock the tokens that I assume would be airdropped

[solid cobalt]

Further lockup could simply be one of the goals. But that interpretation could just be my bias showing.

[gritty mural]

I don't stake but that sounds fair to me IF we go down this route 🤷‍♂️

[versed tendon]

No way a token split should negatively impact people currently staked with tokens who bought at the higher price and invested early. It's just as it sounds, if you had 1 token staked, you now have 100 tokens staked at the same exact weights/duration. You can't make everyone re-stake 99 tokens from scratch with this and screw them over.

[gritty mural]

Pretty sure that’s what I agreed with but maybe I read their replies incorrectly

[versed tendon]

He was saying tokens would be airdropped, so you'd start from scratch. Gotcha though, I don't think people are really pushing for that.

[gritty mural]

Ahh I don’t even know enough about these situations to give good input I guess. What ever is most fair for stakers seeing as they’re the back bone of the token I’m okay with 🥳😂

[static estuary]

They are coming...

[shadow zealot]

oh yeah

[supple olive]

im starting to doubt the feasibility of something like this due to the complexities of staking. when initially making this proposal it was under the assumption that a migration would be easy and simple.

[ionic dagger]

Before you posted this we spoke about it in detail with some of the team ages ago, it would need to be post end of staking yield and along the lines of staking v3.

[median wedge]

And the plan for v3 AFAIK would include a move to layer 2/IMX so migration is going to have to happen

[fleet crag]

Exactly.

[exotic seal]

I vote 👍 after reading all arguments. staking ends in June right?

[plush stag]

Right

[onyx glacier]

if its not done asap with the ending of staking to ride this bull, we might as well wait for next bull or the bottom of the next bear for implementation of this.

merit circle did a 10x just because they split, but they split well before the bull. correct me if i am wrong.

[static estuary]

Yeah we can't rush this, timing has to be right. If it has legs it would have to go on a list and be planned for.

[onyx glacier]

yeah, also i doubt merit 10x just , cuz they split , cuz theyre also cookin a lot, but yeah. imx didnt split and still did insane numbers, cuz they cookin : D

[ionic dagger]

MC became BEAM and it has a fresh narrative and token chart. So it's shiny.

[static estuary]

And I love their new logo's Atari 2600 vibes...

[ionic dagger]

Yeah branding is on point

[ionic dagger]

Exact thinking of a lot of crypto. X token price is expensive for a gaming token when they can buy 1000's of cheaper tokens. People dont look at market cap and FDV.

[plush stag]

So sad to read those comments... "I don't care about MC, a gaming token is not worth 1900$"
There should be more influencers educating, than just shilling

[solid cobalt]

Has it been discussed in here about how a token split would impact DAO’s quadratic voting and the weight different size wallets would have? I’m curious to see what would happen to the votes of different size wallets. Maybe there would need to be a higher minimum threshold than one token.

ILV token has three core utilities. All are accessed by staking: Yield farming (which will end before any token split), DAO governance, revenue distribution.

Of course the other inherent value is its monetary value.

[solid cobalt]

Meh. Not a big deal I guess. It’s all order of magnitude.

[static estuary]

Influencers fucked us hard, will take a decade to reverse that brand damage.

[ionic dagger]

Stock split, exactly why we should token split. Price bias.

[ancient ridge]

After how much time?From how many years is nvidia on the market?

[ionic dagger]

Doesn't matter, it's price bias that is why stock splits occur purposely to lower prices so people feel more comfortable buying shares.

[ancient ridge]

Potentially, the company aims to demonstrate its serious commitment to investors, simultaneously showcasing its long-term vision and the execution of this strategy. This approach also highlights a key distinction from the stock market, where purchasing fractions of a single share is not an option.

[ionic dagger]

People don't want fractions of anything. Owning a whole something psychologically tends to sway people that is part of price bias.

[shadow zealot]

lol

Josh

You need to use the opposite tactic

[ancient ridge]

We are diferent, I like to owning fractions of btc…I have a little fraction of btc…and I want to accumulated in every month…I don’t have a lot a money but the plan is to buy btc in value of 40$ every month

[glossy pendant]

I definitely agree that there is a different mentality in crypto than is the stock market. BTC set the precedent that coins can be thousands and you don’t own the whole thing. I personally hear more influencers talking about low circulating supply and scarcity as a good thing. But if you look at the stock market there is a different culture

[ionic dagger]

Another token split and rebrand. Guildfi to Zentry.

[exotic seal]

I would rather have 100 ILV tokens than 1 for the same money. but i dont want anyone buying ILV token other than me though lol

[static estuary]

51 votes, is that enough for an IIP?

[solid cobalt]

Could be

[static estuary]

Thought it was 50+ votes for an IIP.

[solid cobalt]

Yeah. Who will help @supple olive write it up as an IIP?

Or ICCP could be better since it’s a change to tokenomics and not a new thing. Technicalities for someone on council to think about.

[static estuary]

@supple olive happy to help write it I also think @ionic dagger has written an IIP/ICCP for this.

[plush stag]

You don't need any upvotes in #1020759212172775464 to write an IIP.
You need 25 upvotes in governance section to get it up for voting on council stages

[ionic dagger]

Happy for you to do it. Team effort.

[supple olive]

dm me and we can all collab on it

i just need help with the formatting

[plush stag]

You can tag <@&1107754780744487002> to help you out with that and also other feedback in how to Set up the proposal propperly 🙂

[upbeat ridge]

happy to help, dm's should be open

[static estuary]

Please include a simple example of what happens with existing token holders.

I have a suspicion that some people feel their holdings will be diluted.

[vapid mural]

If you own 1 ILV worth 100$ and it gets split by :100 then you'll have 100 ILV worth each 1$ so the total value of 100$ doesn't change it'll just look like more and make it more appealing to people that have no clue.

[static estuary]

Spot on, something like that.

Not everyone is great with maths/tokenomics, it's always better to explain any impacts, especially considering our target audience for this change.

[wide cove]

I love me some formatting, hit me up if u need

Just ask @lethal thistle how obssessed I am with formatting 🤣

[onyx glacier]

id even go for more than 1:100.

[glossy prism]

Go 10000:1 so a token is approx 1 cent

[static estuary]

Fucken beautiful.

The "what if it gets to $1?" army is stronk.

[onyx glacier]

😂

[ionic dagger]

While we are at it, we have as well use wormhole or someone similar to make the new token multichain. Wormhole uses NTT. So many benefits to having the ILV token natively multichain.

[ionic dagger]

I wanted to discuss splitting the token to what quantity ratio is up for discussion but something like 1:1000.

Price bias is a real thing as we limit ourselves to new investors based on our token being higher priced than a lot of top crypto projects.

You can see how successful token split/migrations have been for other gamefi projects such as Merit Circles move to Beam. MakerDAO is doing a split from MKR to NGT 1:24000, Guildfi to Zentry 1:10.

By splitting the token you open the project up to a wider audience of investors who are happier to invest owning more whole tokens.

I completely understand you can buy fractions of a token, however price bias is well studied and completely psychological in nature.

However a split would be more attractive for investors in the crypto space, more token sales, token go up, better capital raise potential. It would ultimately give ourselves a better chance for adoption and success investment wise.

We have been talking about this for some time in the Token channel and have had positive feedback from team members like @ancient bridge and @grim hound

However the feedback was this would need to wait until staking rewards end. This is likely because we would need new staking contracts etc for the new token etc.

Hence the requirement or feedback Kieran gave regarding waiting until after staking rewards are done.
Things to consider are what the new token would be called if we were to change the ticker and what that would look like if we chose to do that and to what degree we split, do we do 1:1000 or do we do more like 1:10000.

This is completely up for discussion, lets hash this out and at a minimum get this moving forward to either a yay or nay and if yay then get something drafted and passed in premise ahead of time.

All the best,
Josh

Above was my original type up for an idea thread. It never got posted because the bot kept blocking it for spam lol. Just glad like minded people see the positives and want to explore. @supple olive happy to help if you need anything.

[static estuary]

Why are we RIP'ing Nick lol?

[static estuary]

Great points, my preference would be 10,000:1 as well, reset the price to 1 cent so we can grow into parity with $1.

I'm predicting RevDis will have a profound impact on our future marketing and most of our investors will be people new to tokenomics, spending $500 to obtain 50,000 tokens is great optics.

WTF?

[runic vault]

dnt say rip lol

hes not dead, at least when i dm him last week

[hexed spade]

This post has enough support to go to governance chat.

[honest jacinth]

It's weird to me that something can go to governance chat when over 50% of people have thumbs downed it.

[runic vault]

u dnt need votes in feedback ideas to post in gov ideas

[plush stag]

totally, but you have the same situation there aswell 🙂

[runic vault]

but i would prefer the discussion to be done here since gov ideas is token gated

[runic vault]

im ok with it
i believe it can encourage people to put idea through

the only work is uploading it to github

[honest jacinth]

Now that you said that I vaguely remember the whole discussion about whether it should only be token holders bringing ideas and voting and the whole feedback ideas vs governance. That was a while back and I'm old so...

[solid cobalt]

Once sILV2 can no longer be minted then the actual token split could be one where the new supply was a beautifully round number. The supply is currently and will always be very wonky unless the supply on the other end of a token split is made round.

Thanks to fractionalization, this would not be technically difficult, just more difficult for current owners to understand.

Say we have 8,694,201 ILV any round (10x-10,000x) split will be nearly as annoying to know the supply off hand. But calculating for a weird split but a nice round new supply could be more beneficial. The above example would be something like a 1 to 1150.369ish split to get from 8,694,201 to 10billion. It is possible that some small number of tokens might need to “disappear” to make it a perfectly round supply.

This is an idea that Aaron has mentioned and I was drawn to.

[static estuary]

We putting an IIP together for this? Happy to be a 2nd set of eyes, my day job is documentation. Just reach out

[onyx glacier]

they said after staking is over i believe

[static estuary]

IIP will be submitted after staking v3? OK cool that makes sense.

[onyx glacier]

no harm to prepare from now tho. check with someone from council if u want

[eager kettle]

You can't rule out any future burns, so could do a clean conversion of x100

[solid cobalt]

But with no real burn mechanism why not?

[eager kettle]

Just suggesting to keep it simple. Burning is as simple as sending it to 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[solid cobalt]

Yeah. That’s true.

[onyx glacier]

no clue revdisbro

[static estuary]

Is an IIP in progress for this? Happy to draft one if nobody is running with it.

[glossy prism]

Do it!

[ionic dagger]

Do it

[supple olive]

go for it

[static estuary]

🫡

[static estuary]

<@&1107754780744487002> do you have any IIP/ICP templates I can use for this draft? Thank you please.

[wide cove]

We don't really have specific templates.

We tend to break down proposals into the following headings.

Introduction
Abstract
Overview
Rationale
Conclusion

If you'd like I can whip you up a google doc

[static estuary]

Ah OK, I thought we had a template. I don't venture out of Token much, do we have any well written IIP's I can use as a guide?

Just an example to get me started.

[wide cove]

Any of mine 🤣 .

Seriously though I have helped format some of Filow's in the past so they are quite coherent nowadays, in terms of recency and my personal style.

[static estuary]

Look at you, I've neve seen one. Link me the one you are most proud of, I can do the rest. Thanks mate.

[wide cove]

#1233368192798298182 message

This ones good, u really just need the headings, send me your proposal when its in the works and ill provide my feedback too

[static estuary]

I'm going to scan this chat from the OP and cherry pick all the good posts as well, I'll have something solid in 14 days, work is busy RN.

[wide cove]

I feel u, i be signing land and building docs every day, thankfully it should wrap up next weekend

[static estuary]

There is a certain purple game I'd like to try as well 😉

[wide cove]

Hahahah I wish I had special access I could give people 😛

[shadow zealot]

10000000000:1

[static estuary]

Lol.

[static estuary]

What did Beam do? 100x or 1000x?

[lethal thistle]

I don't think this is happening before staking is in L2. So there's really no need to rush this.

[static estuary]

FYI I have started the draft, I'm about half way though, I should have it finished in the next 48 hours.

[solid cobalt]

https://tenor.com/view/rookie-numbers-gif-26135237

[ionic dagger]

Needs unlocking

[static estuary]

First time using Google docs, thought it was open, granted permission.

[ionic dagger]

Covers mostly everything I'd say. I think the split would benefit giveaways and prize pools also. Specially at a grassroots level. Giving people whole tokens feels better than 0.02 ILV for example.

[static estuary]

Good point, I will add it.

[jagged zodiac]

Requested access but might be good to just let anyone with link to view

[static estuary]

Yep will sort it out soon.

[runic vault]

less sophisticated investors

[junior spruce]

think a 10000 is too much, don't want to be tooo shitcoiny feels a bit desperate. just 1000 is gud imo

[static estuary]

I was wondering the same thing, easy to change if there's consensus.

[wide cove]

I generally concur yep

[static estuary]

Two versions of the draft proposal:

• 10,000x token split: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTcvaqw1ZBmH-grFgskmqXGNjtJ2yrZh_vG3Y1gqnaDcH-IfZ9KigOou0YEksB49uFqKHl4VhSdoYFB/pub

• 1,000x token split: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRKsOyB073ovRpiAYXX8drKbYf56WLqRpYBdq2ypSiZyjHqV3W6_gloEijz5pDUBlrWWQZ6Ka5PnE6m/pub

[jaunty moat]

im all for a token split whenever is possible. 10.000 or 1.000 token split im fine with both but a little more inclined to the 1.000 split.

[lethal thistle]

I would vote for 1,000x split as well. ILV is poised to reach 1k$ again. When it does splitting the token to bring the price back to 1$ would be awesome.

[jaunty moat]

(im saving my wen 20's memes lol)

[wary bloom]

Doesn’t a lower supply mean it’s easier to pump though? I don’t see a need for a token split. Because once we get hype and say have a 1 billion dollar buying pressure in a week the coin will surge. I guess it will still do that if split too.

[runic vault]

lower circl supply is easier to pump, low float
we are at 60%+ already

im gonna go with 100x
1 billion token sounds cool
other games have 1b too

[static estuary]

Tomorrow I will take it back to 1 draft and put a table in each example with 3 options, 10,000x, 1,000x and 100x.

[solid cobalt]

We just can’t let them see this thread.

We’ve had to clean mod chat when we’ve added new mods before. Don’t wanna make em feel bad. ||jk if they can’t handle us they don’t deserve us||

[junior spruce]

Ya - 100 would be good too. It would have a more premium feel and still be where people can easily buy a few even at much higher valuations than here

[runic vault]

maybe change the wording to newcomers or broader retail investors?

[runic vault]

maybe we do a vote on the split

[junior spruce]

btw 100 and 1000 and I'm pretty happy

[jaunty moat]

me too

[junior spruce]

another one to watch https://x.com/smartestmoney_/status/1791528965942972911

smartestmoney.eth (@smartestmoney_) on X

"Launch of a blockchain network named Sonic Network, with a native token utilizing the ticker $S. This will be a new layer-1 chain with a native layer-2 bridge connected to Ethereum and beyond."

Imagine getting a brand new chart for $FTM to $S.

Price discovery incoming.

Twitter · May 17, 2024, 5:59 PM

[wet bone]

Just finish reading. I understand where you are coming from. I think the subtilities of x1000 and all of this to attract idiots investor and using the team time for it instead of working on the actual project is a waste of time. Berkshire Hattaway never splitted their stock and is the most succesful thing out there. If noobs want to have billions of token let them wreck themselves with their stupidities because the only thing that matters is Market Cap. We have a premium product. Dumbing down for stupid investor just to get traction and reducing work time on actual thing that matters seems to me really counter productive .

[static estuary]

Apple makes their products Grandma proof, do you not think that's a good strategy?

[wet bone]

It is . Depends what is the targeted audience. Thats why youll never see a performing ESport Gamer using Mac for gaming purposes. Initially the tought of having a high price on ILV was to indicate premiumness and strenght(2021 Kieran Interview if im not mistaken). BTC is 66K . Still has the highest praises and reputation of them all. It attracted etf's . Boomers with billions of dollars. Black Rock . Youll never see a Doge Coin eth at Black Rock. As I said I understand your tought process and I know you are fully well intentionned. But weve been hit with delays before. They exist. Now we are in the most crucial part of the project . We gotta prove we are here to stay. I dont think spending time on an illusion would serve us well .Because it is only an illusion right ?

[static estuary]

Yep it's purely psychological.

I find this topic so fascinating, it's a real Vegemite issue, you either love it or hate it there is no middle ground.

[ionic dagger]

Price bias is well studied, it's simply a truth that exists. Yeah sure it doesn't make sense but it is factual.

I don't think taking the high road makes any sense. Especially as it's likely to the detriment of the project.

I don't want to be in a situation with sub-optimal price action, when we can take simple steps to improve it.

[wet bone]

I mean brother have you seen the charts 🤣 . Idk if changing decimals changes that 🤣. But yea my first week investing got me dumping money on stupid stuff cause It was <<cheap>> tokens. But then isnt it a bit scammy to trick people with this type of approach? Since its all psychological changing numbers is a way to deceive real numbers

[ionic dagger]

It's simply widening the investment audience. All you do is open ILV up to a wide gamut of investors/capital.

[static estuary]

New copy of the draft, now with all 3 multipliers in the examples, 100x, 1,000x and 10,000x.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTHHO9SHJ6kvdgS7dvgqr-TyCC11DUsiDzczwwB5CaAzIzBTK2gWrDXGkUJWyFeHlxNfsGA0uC25OO_/pub

I'm fairly new to ILV governance, do we just put this forward as a vote for a token split then leave the multiplier for the team to decide?

Or do we first vote for the token split and if successful we have a 2nd vote for the multiplier?

[lethal thistle]

I would do a pool to gauge community sentiment in this thread. I would then put the message link into the proposal to showcase the pool made but ultimately leave the decision in the hands of the team.

[supple olive]

thanks for taking the baton on this bro, looks great

i would just take out "less sophisticated investor" as that sounds predatory...

[static estuary]

Easy, can just replace it with New Investor or those with unit price bias.

[static estuary]

That's now done mate, I took away most references to "new" and all references to "less sophisticated" investors. Come to think of it, I know people that are not new to crypto that still have a bias towards projects with a low unit price, so it was a great suggestion.

Gotta admit, I'm loving Google docs, first time I've ventured outside of Word/Confluence as a publisher and I'm impressed.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTHHO9SHJ6kvdgS7dvgqr-TyCC11DUsiDzczwwB5CaAzIzBTK2gWrDXGkUJWyFeHlxNfsGA0uC25OO_/pub

[shadow zealot]

Confluence is nice though because markdown and stuff but google docs supports that and dark mode now soooooo I’m happy

[static estuary]

What are the next steps with something like this, do we need to put a post together, tag the Doc and put it up for a vote?

[shadow zealot]

1:10000000000000

But really it can go to vote whenever but there needs to be more detail into how it will work for staking and airdrop etc it’s easy to say let’s do it it’s harder to execute

[static estuary]

That will be left up to the team to decide yes? I on purpose didn't want to prescribe the "how", I simply listed that there could be some complexity around staking contracts which is a known risk.

[shadow zealot]

You’re local friendly <@&1107754780744487002> member I’m sure would love to help

[static estuary]

Thanks me baba.

[runic vault]

happy this idea comes to a fruition

[wide cove]

How would you like to proceed?

[static estuary]

@supple olive over to you mate, I just helped write up the doc, this is your idea.

[static estuary]

Out of curiosity, what's the usual process after ideation?

[supple olive]

lets submit it?

[static estuary]

Sure, you're in good hands with @wide cove he can guide us.

I'm here if you need more support.

[wide cove]

Yeah shoot me a DM and we can go through it

Technically it needs to go into gov ideas but we need to formalize and structure the proposal. I am a little behind on the discussion that took place in this chat so will need to catch up a bit as well

[ionic dagger]

Nvidia stock split.

Good idea for Nvidia. Bad for ILV? Nope.

[wet bone]

Stocks behave differently than crypto. you cant buy fractions of stocks. But if the price bias and the trend is there I guess why not.

[uncut ocean]

Bump

I would love to see this go ahead and get the conversation flowing again

Will add more value later on today on why 🙏

[timid cypress]

is that why? 😛

[uncut ocean]

We need a new chart!!!

1. Its a great marketing ploy
2. People will feel like they own more of something
3. Do this in feb/march with all the other marketing

Why would we not do this?

@wide cove @runic vault
Boys get this in motion asap ☺️

Doesn’t have to be 100:1 but something

[runic vault]

mostly because of backend effort required

if u want a new chart then what u need is a token migration into a new ticker

[uncut ocean]

Won't a token split create a new chart as well?

[uncut ocean]

how much back end effort is required? Do you know the man hours

[runic vault]

hmm i never read the contract but screener is saying the token is mintable

[runic vault]

we can enquiry about this in our next meeting

[uncut ocean]

yes please do 🙂

[lethal thistle]

why do we need a new chart? Having price history is a good thing.
IMO a token split only makes sense when we get back to the $1000+ price range.

[uncut ocean]

I disagree, as its great marketing deploy for a token split.

Also new chart is better in the way that from a price standpoint less resistance and more price discovery.

[lethal thistle]

let's agree to disagree. ILV ain't a meme coin. I actually love ILV's chart and having an ATH on the chart at $1.9k is actually a good thing IMO as it gives a price target which this time around will correspond to a much higher marketcap evaluation.

[static estuary]

[thick helm]

I would love a 100:1 price split, I remember my friend asking me last bullrun what crypto i recommend him to buy I said ilv at $400 and he’s like no way I’m not buying the price is way too high already (He is a complete noob and knows nothing about market cap) But my point is people are more likely to invest in a token that’s $4 than $400 even though the market cap is the same.

[forest beacon]

I'm not necessarily against a token split, but the timing would be important. There are positives and negatives that can be tied to a stock or token split. Typically I've seen stock splits when the price has gotten out of hand and seems expensive and can help bring in a new wave of investors, but ILV is still suppressed at a low price especially compared to its ATH, maybe it makes sense to split when we're deeper in the bull run? Or in a bear market when there are less eyeballs on the token price which would minimize investor confusion while solving the price bias issue.

ILV has a narrative of fixed supply and good tokenomics, and it's one of the few crypto tokens to reach above $1000 per coin, I'm not sure if it's wise to mess with that for the sake of a juicier visual token price, at least not at this time in the cycle.

[static estuary]

Tell the truth, you like posting pics of yourself on X and you never want the token price to be $500 again!

[thick helm]

I thought the same lol

[uncut ocean]

Dead haha 🤣

[runic vault]

[runic vault]

question:
if we do a token split u gonna have to keep posting your beauty shots

[timid cypress]

I have asked the Team about if a tokensplit is on their radar and doable. they said that it will be a ton of work, so i don't think it makes sense right now, and they reached out to beam and merit circle for input. the short answer: maybe.

[uncut ocean]

Okay thanks Paz for the update

[jaunty moat]

i was hoping to be a ilv millionaire before 2025