Extension of MPL <> SYRUP Conversion

Discussion Forum
21

I want to be clear and direct in response to the recent commentary opposing the conversion deadline. This is not just a matter of opinion — this is about protocol integrity, transparency, and setting the right precedent for current and future stakeholders. Over 10 million MPL tokens were successfully migrated to SYRUP in the original window — a figure that represents nearly all meaningful holders. What remains is overwhelmingly low-volume, dust-tier MPL — likely held by wallet drifters, inactive LPs, or traders who chose to speculate on delay and indecision. Now, suddenly, we’re seeing brand-new forum accounts — many created within the last 24–72 hours — surfacing with coordinated posts claiming to “speak for early investors.” This behavior looks less like community feedback and more like an orchestrated last-minute scalp attempt to benefit from passive asset appreciation without engaging in governance or staking.

Leaving conversion open-ended creates uncertainty in the token supply, confuses emissions planning, and weakens governance alignment. Closing the window allowed the protocol to fully commit to SYRUP, and signal to the market — including institutions — that this is a serious, evolving DeFi platform with defined rules and operational discipline.

If you truly believed in the protocol’s long-term vision, you would’ve migrated when the opportunity was clearly provided. Choosing to sit on MPL for months, only to demand last-minute accommodations, is not long-term alignment — it’s reactionary trading.

If Maple reopens the conversion process after clearly closing it, you are telling every future investor — retail and institutional alike — that rules are flexible, timelines are negotiable, and governance can be gamed by whoever yells the loudest at the last minute. That is a dangerous precedent. And if that becomes the operating standard, you can count me out as an investor going forward.

I strongly oppose any reopening of the MPL → SYRUP migration window.
• It undermines trust in the governance process.
• It rewards inaction and opportunism.
• It directly disrespects those of us who migrated in good faith, engaged with the protocol, and contributed to its growth during the most critical phases of transition.

If Maple Finance intends to become a serious on-chain asset manager and compete with BlackRock, Apollo, or Ares, it must enforce structure, accountability, and finality — even when it’s inconvenient. SYRUP is the future of Maple. Let’s move forward — not backward.

22

To reply to Abington:

This is NOT about protocol integrity, however, it IS about transparency and setting the right precedent for current and future stakeholders. The protocol can be changed if enough people vote on it. That’s it. That’s the integrity of the protocol. Integrity does not mean that it cannot be changed when a majority deem it should be changed.

And your comment that “…over 10 million MPL tokens were successfully migrated to SYRUP in the original window - a figure that represents nearly all meaningful holders” speaks volumes about your individual character and hurts the trust that investors have in the Development team (current and future investors). EVERY holder is a MEANINGFUL holder - not just the ones that are sitting by their computers every day participating in MPL/SYRUP discussions or protocol votes. It is arrogant to state anything otherwise.

As for your other comment, that “..what remains is overwhelmingly low-volume, dust-tier MPL - likely held by wallet drifters, inactive LPs, or traders who chose to speculate on delay and indecision”, is again arrogant and most importantly, incorrect.

Perhaps some of us investors are not as rich as you and do not hold millions of MPL tokens, but the amount that we invested is what we can afford, and that should not be diminished.

Can you not understand that we are just investors who are now getting burned simply because we weren’t constantly monitoring the everyday activities?

I am not trying to benefit from passive asset appreciation - I simply want to convert my MPL tokens to SYRUP tokens so I can continue to participate in the growth story of Maple Finance.

I understand this is crypto, and not equities, but you do realize that something like this could never happen with a legit company in a regulated environment (e.g., SEC). It is disappointing that you are taking advantage of the lack of laws in crypto to scam early investors.

And your argument that reopening the MPL–>SYRUP migration window “undermines trust in the governance process” is 100% incorrect. The Governance process is simply the act/process of making decisions, and if the majority of holders DECIDE to re-open the migration window then trust in the governance process increases as it becomes apparent that misguided, rushed decisions can be rectified.

3 Likes
23

Thank you for your response — but let’s separate emotion from design, because the integrity of a protocol isn’t measured by how flexible it can be when pressured. It’s measured by whether it honors finalized votes, clear timelines, and public commitments that others have acted upon.

The ability to change a protocol doesn’t mean we should change it — especially when doing so undermines confidence in future decisions.

This isn’t about arrogance. It’s about protecting trust in the system. The claim that “every holder is meaningful” sounds good on paper, but in decentralized governance, participation is meaning. Governance isn’t a safety net for inactivity. It’s a structure for accountability.

You said:

“We’re just investors who got burned because we didn’t monitor every day.”

And yet — those who did monitor, who did show up, who did migrate on time — are now being asked to accept a rollback of structure because others didn’t?

That’s not fairness. That’s a redistribution of consequence.

As for the SEC analogy — Maple isn’t a security. It’s a decentralized, permissionless protocol. The rules are visible. The vote was executed. The migration was public, extended, and finalized.

Calling this a scam ignores every reality of transparent governance and replaces it with emotional entitlement.

You are absolutely free to propose reopening migration via a formal vote.
But if you’re relying on emotional pressure instead of process, you’re not defending governance — you’re bypassing it.

And that is the real threat to long-term trust.

24

The conversion contract no longer holds any SYRUP. The most recent proposal was intentionally structured to drain it completely through the SSF.

So even if the contract were reopened, there would be no SYRUP available to convert.

1 Like
27

I too am a long term holder of MPL. I accumulated them two years ago and haven’t touched them ever since. Given that most of us hold many coins, it’s impossible to keep up to date with all of the projects’ developments and introducing a hard deadline is extremely unfair towards those folks who have been holding MPL for years.

I urge you to consider reopening the transfer for those long term holders until all liquidity has been transferred from MPL to SYRUP. Otherwise, this won’t be the last thread to ask for an extension.

An extension was already granted shortly after the deadline, the precedent is here and given there’s still significant liquidity locked up within MPL, this will happen again. Please do the right thing and allow everyone to migrate.

As an alternative, you could also airdrop SYRUP tokens and shut down MPL altogether.

6 Likes
28

Completely agree, impossible to be aware of every token’s deadlines and so…

6 Likes
29

I see this as an issue of fidelity to the investor. If the project had folded, the total loss is understandable. Re-branding should not be a reason for being left out in the cold. Why purchase SYRUP today if it may become HONEY tomorrow (with a 6 month window again). Please make this right.

6 Likes
31

Do we have any updates on this?

Earlier this year I went through a personal crisis and only recently revisited my portfolio. I wasn’t active on social media or subscribed to any Maple updates, so completely missed the conversion window, as did many others.

I understand and respect the governance process and the challenges of reopening conversions. At the same time, large scale migrations in DeFi often take longer than expected. For instance, MakerDAO’s SAI to DAI and Binance’s BEP2 to BEP20 both extended across multiple years because conversion happens much slower at scale than anticipated.

I hope Maple Governance might consider a similar grace or recovery path for holders who missed the window, so that genuine community members aren’t left with unusable tokens despite holding them in good faith.

1 Like
32

Hi @jonafun1234 welcome to the community. I happen to be more or less in the same situation. I’m still hopefull the DAO will vote ande reconcider..