gateway: https://gateway.aitimeout.site:18001
telegram:  @fisher009

CPU：EPYC 32核64线程

内存：256G

磁盘：4TB SSD

1个公网ip

带宽： 200M


proposalId

Untitled - treasury proposal #13

网关名：Area51-GW 
Telegram: @cryptocloud2049
**系统配置**
CPU: 18核 36线程
内存：32G
磁盘： 1.96T
公网 223.111.148.195
域名 http://223.111.148.195:8080

Untitled - treasury proposal #15

How to increase the VALUE and UTILITY of Crust tokens? Unite Crust Shadow (CSM) and Crust Network (CRU) with one brand and create one token for two networks in a long term. 71 CSM = 1 CRU

A new future for Crust Network
CRU have a small capitalisation but CSM capitalisation is smaller. Furthermore, Crust Shadow isn’t a storage network. There are storage providers only on Crust Network. And Crust Network is multichain, it’s important for this proposal . I think a systemic mistake was made when we create two tokens, and we can do steps to solve it.

Kusama dilemma and BIG mistake.
There were two options for projects which started as parachains on Kusama two years ago , first to build the networks with one token for Kusama and Polkadot or make two different networks and two brands with different tokenomics. Bifrost and Phala for example chose two networks under one brand and one token for two networks. Others like Acala , Astar , Centrifuge, Crust Network and many others made huge mistakes and built two different brands that they can’t handle qualitatively.

I think it’s time for Crust and other networks in the same situation to discuss with the community and tokenholders the future steps.

Here are at least two options we can solve the problem with CSM.
1. First option is to change CSM to CRU tokens for holders from the treasury in some proportion and close Crust Shadow.
Advantages - fast solution, only one token.
Disadvantages - no representation in the Kusama ecosystem, the work that is already done will be lost, the damage for Kusama ecosystem.
So this is not the best option.

2. Second option - make two networks as one allowing easy change of CSM to CRU on both sides, so the functioning of the two networks will be operated as Phala or Bifrost network. This concept is more optimal… Transfer the CSM into CRU on Kusama after some time. So the CRU token can become a multi chain like -  DOT/ KSM.
Advantages - we still have representation in the KSM and DOT ecosystem and keep the work already done, the CRU and CSM tokens both increase its value , because of synergy and unity.
Disadvantages - we need to make decisions about the unity and vote for terms.

Here is my countings for the second option:
CRU Total Supply  28 millions
CSM Total Supply 200 millions
If we take the CSM capitalisation value 1/10 of CRU capitalisaion value we have for 1 CRU = 71 CSM

I think it will be fair to change CSM to CRU , in 71:1 proportion. It will add CRU to circulation but it will add only 10% and make CRU multichain token valuable on Polkadot and Kusama both. 

Conclusion.
I think Crust Shadow as an independent network and brand was a mistake. 
I think the situation is absolutely clear for anyone in the community. Even Parity and Web3F mostly give up with Kusama (no XCM connection to DOT, no allocation of DOTs to govern by Kusama council as discussed a couple years ago, no support for teams planning to start on Kusama , issues with governance and so on ). They are focusing on Polkadot mostly.
So the second parallel ecosystem is fetters on the legs especially in bear market. Bifrost, Phala and some others did it right. Acala, Astar, Centrifuge, Crust and many others made a big mistake to start parallel networks with 2 different brands.

I want this message to be seriously considered and discussed by the community, Crust Network core team, ambassadors, and all the community members. Let’s discuss this point from economical, technical and ideological sides.


One token for Crust ecosystem

网关名：Crust IPFS GW
Telegram：@mstflint
系统配置：
CPU：32线程
内存：48G
磁盘：1TB ssd
带宽:  1Gbps
域名：https://gw.w3ipfs.org.cn
位置：洛杉矶