One token for Crust ecosystem

11 Comments

Content
AI Summary

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.

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.
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.

Do you want ONE token for Crust ecosystem ?

Single

Anonymous

Expired undefined

Yes. One token is the best for Crust ecosystem

54%

No. We must keep CRU and CSM.

45%

Total 51 votes

Up 3

Comments

Soyeb123

Csm and cru both are good an important for crust network..

Edited

cTKj...bM1c

We can’t draw conclusions so directly that W3F has given up on Kusama. In fact, Kusama has always carried the functions of Polkadot ecological experiments and new function tests. It is more radical and more conducive to the low-cost implementation of innovative ideas. W3F has also been committed to maintaining the development of this ecology.
Crust has always hoped to follow the development of the Polkadot ecosystem, so Crust must participate in the construction of the Kusama ecosystem. Crust shadow was created for this purpose and we cannot give up on it.

Up 1

cTLL...kzVD

From the perspective of project operation, merging CSM and CRU into one token is a solution that increases complexity. So that's why most of the project parties such as Acala, Astar, Centrifuge Clover Moonbeam. . .etc issue two tokens to participate in Polkadot and Kusama respectively.
From the perspective of users, if you think that the market value of CSM is too low and the value of participating in the construction of Kusama cannot meet the needs of users, it is recommended that users convert CSM into CRU by yourself. Instead of letting the project merge the two tokens.

Up 1

Aki

Thank you for your proposal. After careful review, we have the following considerations:

Currently, CSM is the native token of Crust Shadow and it has its own economic model, which prevents us from arbitrarily destroying it. Additionally, on Shadow, we also provide storage orders for other parachains.

We do not believe that the Web3 Foundation and Polkadot have given up the Kusama ecosystem, and we are not inclined to easily give up on the Kusama ecosystem either.

From the very beginning, the design of CSM was intended for 100% distribution to the community. It is a completely different concept from CRU, so we do not support the conversion between the two. If CSM users do not wish to hold CSM, they can sell it on Kraken and then exchange it for CRU. There are also secondary markets available for buying and selling.

We appreciate your understanding in this matter.

cTMp...uZx3

Hello everyone, after several discussions, I let this poll but I'll make some changes for the "proposal" in democraty vote.
I don't think we must give up Kusama ecosystem. I want only keep one token for the three Crust networks ( Crust mainnet / Crust Parachain as Polkadot parachain / Crust Shadow as Kusama parachain).
Two ways for the new proposal:

change the ration between CSM and CRU. If CSM holders want the 71:1 ratio, they can sell now CSM and buy CRU. But if we convert CSM to CRU, we can use the ratio 142 CSM: 1 CRU. WIth this ratio we have only 5% inflation with new tokens added .
give CSM to community and use CRU on Crust Shadow. If CSM is community owned, we must assume this fact.

cTK4...2SsZ

In my understanding, CRU - DOT and CSM - KSM are native tokens of different chains. If I want to swap CSM for CRU, I should exchange CSM to USDT in the market, and then exchange USDT to CRU.

cTHs...a5Lb

In my opinion, CRU and CSM should be kept separate. The following is why:

As CRU holders we cannot tell CSM holders what to do. They need to decide if they want to merge with us as well. What if they decide they don't want to merge with CRU. Will they just keep their CSM? What effect will that have on us if some choose to merge and some choose not to merge? This will cause confusion. If we force everyone to convert then those who don't want to will be upset.
This may be unfair to the current CRU holders. The current CRU holders have bought CRU and have been loyal, but in this scenario, they will not receive any rewards, in fact, they will receive token inflation or loss of project treasury. On the other hand, the CSM holders will be rewarded for holding CSM just for purchasing CSM. Since in this scenario, they will be receiving more CRU than what they currently hold in CSM. What I mean is we are giving them CRU based on the current supply of CRU and CSM which is ~1/10 or 1 CRU for 71 CSM. However, if we use the current price of CSM we can see that 1 CRU = 157 CSM. This means we are giving them approximately 2.2 more CRU than they are currently holding at value. These CSM holders did not do anything extra, or any work for the network in order for this to occur. They are making instant gains in this scenario. There is a chance many holders will purchase CSM right before the conversion in order to get these gains and instantly dump the CRU. Also, many holders that bought for less will dump their new CRU. The loyal CRU holders will not be getting double CRU just for holding, only those that got CSM will gain. I do sympathize with CSM holders that CSM has gone down in price, but so has CRU. We all choose to invest and do our own research, and we should all be held accountable for the decisions we make. The data behind CSM usage is widely available and public. It was their choice to degen into a very volatile asset, so why should CRU holders be held accountable? If we want to make it equal based on the price of CSM /CRU it is possible but the math would be much more complicated because we would be increasing the supply by every CRU we give out. It would require the use of the double derivative method popularized in the stock market for new stock offerings. Many holders may not understand this method and may feel they are getting less CRU than they are deserved and will not agree. This will make people angry. Overall I think this is too complicated.
Even if everyone agrees, this will put unnecessary stress on our network. We will need to decide the method of rewarding these CSM holders. There are only two possibilities. Firstly we take existing CRU from the current Crust treasury and hand it out to CSM holders. This is not possible in my opinion because it will decrease the amount of money the team has to do marketing for the project. Our treasury is already very small compared to many other projects considering our market cap, so I don't think we want to make it smaller. The second option is to mint new tokens which would cause token inflation. This option would be possible perhaps in 5-10 years when CRU prices are more stabilized and if we were to get inflation for this project down to 1-2% but with the current math this would be around 10% inflation for our network. That would be on top of our already 14% inflation this year. I don't think it is feasible to increase inflation by even 1%.
Overall I think this is a bad decision. Many networks have canary networks outside of Polkadot and don't have problems with them. We shouldn't make decisions just based on what others are doing, we should analyze and think critically instead.

Up 1

cTMK...bvJZ

Yes, true. We cannot force CSM holders to merge with CRU. They should decide if they want to merge or not. If some choose to merge and some don't, it will create confusion and inconsistency within the community.
Holding CSM is a personal choice, and the price of CSM has also gone down. CRU holders should not be held accountable for the decisions made by CSM holders. Making the conversion based on the price ratio of CSM/CRU would be complex and may lead to misunderstandings and dissatisfaction among holders.