MIP-017: Final MPL Conversion Window and Strategic Use of Unconverted Tokens

[delucamike]

Throwing in my 2 cents: I’m an ex-Maple employee (deluca-mike on Github) who held onto his vested MPL and never sold a single unit because I trusted the team. I held my tokens in cold storage, and didn’t watch updates like a hawk. I stop paying attention for 6 months, and now my MPL is voided. I never received a single email or message. This is pretty unprecedented for a serious DeFi project.

While I understand and appreciate the risk of arbitrage that exists now that MPL has dropped in value with respect to SYRUP, by reopening the conversion, the only real losers are those who sold their MPL post-deadline to someone accumulating in hopes of being able to convert again. The total amount that could have been converted has not changed, so it doesn’t matter who is converting. Extending the deadline affects Syrup holders because they are allowing more rightful holders of MPL to convert, not because some of those holders happened to have acquired MPL after the deadline.

And as a smart contract developer, it wouldn’t be that difficult to deploy a conversion smart contract that only allowed holders to convert MPL they had at a snapshot at a certain block number. Heck, I’ll write that contract for free.

[min]

Great post, Mike, thank you for chiming in. Your second paragraph especially resonated with me. The buyers of MPL since the conversion deadline are providing liquidity in an uncertain environment. It’s unknown if MPL-SYRUP conversions will ever exist again, and if they do open up at some unknown later date, what the conversion rate will be. MPL owners since the deadline passed have, at their full discretion, chosen whether or not to continue to hold their MPL or sell it. I don’t think it makes sense to reward MPL sellers with a full SYRUP allocation on top of the proceeds they got from selling their MPL. They already liquidated their MPL stake, and the buyers of that MPL have all the benefits of that MPL stake, uncertain as they are. And even now, under threat of being zeroed out from future plans, MPL buyers are playing an important role, providing liquidity to MPL sellers if they want it.

In my opinion as a long-time fan of the project and Pendle YT holder, I favor reopening MPL-to-SYRUP conversions at the full 100x ratio for the indefinite future, but this proposal would be acceptable to me in lieu of that. Please don’t leave 11% of your community behind!

[Laksh]

Hey Team, Appreciate the extra chance to convert Maple tokens!

Ive invested and held MPL for a long time and considered it one of my best holds. I was unaware of the conversion and time limit, just found out now. Would absolutely appreciate being able to still convert to syrup. Otherwise I just got rugged.. And one question, why couldnt you automatically convert MPL to Syrup to save holders if MPL was going to become useless anyway? Thanks.

[caceres]

Dear Maple Team& Community,

great to hear you are considering reopening of conversion. I will try to be objective as much as possible:

1. Can we agree that conversion of token should not be taken recklessly in any aspect because it is very sensitive issue?

2. Can we agree that best and only fair option to perform conversion is airdropping new token to holders of old ones?

3. Can we agree that if the fair option - airdropping new token is not possible (be it technical hard or financially burdensome for project) it would be needed to reconsider twice or more if there are other ways of achieving set goals on other way without conversion?

4. Can we agree that such an event -conversion of token would need to be communicated directly / personally to all holders (not just to those with tokens on coinbase) and because this is hard achievable it can’t be simpy concluded that other means like e.g. social networks would be enough to get the message to all?

5. Can we agree that sudden strong price movement of token is strong signal/indication for holders who are mainly paying attention to this behaviour and that it would make sense to stop trading of Maple token before end of conversion period or automatically extend the period of conversion if that would not be possible (for at least two weeks or one month) in order to enable timely conversion for these holders too?

6. Can we agree that also (passive) long-term holders are beneficial (price stability, potential referral, decentralization, spread in presence…) for crypto projects?

7. Can we agree that Maple project needs to grow in user and holder base and that suboptimal conversion of token could put bad image on project and hinder growth prospects?

8. Can we agree that engaging with RWA requests from crypto project high standards (like in tradfi) overall, not just on surface and there where it is easy to implement?

9. Can we agree that with reopening of conversion the risk for potential lawsuits is diminishing? Someone might later legally object conversion was not fair (even if the responsibility of persons behind conversion is not clear and conversions are not yet regulated)?

10. Can we agree that there is a difference between holders of Maple tokens before May 2025 and buyers of Maple tokens in May 2025? And that it makes sense to differentiate the treatment of these two groups in potentially reopened conversion of Maple tokens?

[necasworld]

I think you shared your opinion earlier. 5 posts doesn’t make this forum read easier. I don’t think you are developer and I’m sure dev team knows how to create a smart contract. If needed. Saying that we will use “unaudited code” is just creates confusion. You sound like the one, who loaded up with arbitrage and doesn’t seem to care that real project supporters lost their investment. Saying “SYRUP is doing just fine without the 10% who didn’t keep up.” just sums it up your opinion.

[delucamike]

I wrote core smart contract code that is still used today for Maple, and held on to my tokens without selling a single unit. Do not even ever try to paint me as someone who doesn’t care about the protocol and am just looking out for myself. If I was still working at Maple and migrated my own tokens as an insider with full knowledge, I still would be fighting to this day to ensure that past Maple token holders are made whole. That’s the principled approach.

It is rather unprecedented for a serious DeFi project to have a cutoff for converting tokens. There is absolutely no technical reason to have a deadline at all. It’s just greed to cull those who have parked their tokens and aren’t paying attention, in order to decrease circulating supply of the new token. And let’s be clear, those who have parked their tokens are doing a service to the token holders by increasing scarcity and decreasing sell pressure. And the reward they get is to have their tokens voided.

The type of greed required to be against this proposal, or for any proposal that leaves behind MPL token holders, is the same that would fuel and justify a community to create a new token every two years, for example, with its own migration deadline, just to cull more and more token holders, to increase the token value of those who manage to migrate. It’s also antithetical to how real-world assets work or any traditional financial product, both of which Maple/Syrup are trying to beat.

You’re trying to conflate the discussion about what makes a moral or technically feasible migration with the discussion of reopening the window for 48 hours, in order to justify voting no.

The current proposal doesn’t have any bells or whistles attached. I don’t think it goes far enough, but any proposal that goes in any direction to help real people that have real money locked in MPL, is a step in the right direction.

[Sha]

I’ve seen some people arguing that late holders should not be given the chance to convert their tokens now, because they missed previous deadlines. I strongly disagree.

First of all, it’s easy to sit in judgement if you had the time or knowledge to convert earlier. But many real long-term investors (myself included) bought their MPL tokens on centralized exchanges like Gate.io and held them safely in custodial wallets, fully believing in the project. We never received any official emails, platform warnings, or exchange notifications about the migration.

As serious adults with jobs, families, and commitments, we do not monitor every project, chart, or crypto announcement 24/7 like short-term speculators. That doesn’t make us “less worthy” holders. It makes us what every project truly needs: patient, long-term believers who bring price stability and community trust.

I understand that some may want to “benefit” by reducing the total circulating supply. I get it — that’s simple greed. But it’s short-sighted and disappointing, because anyone could have been in our position. One day you may miss something too.

This decision by the Maple team shows true leadership and respect for real investors. It strengthens the project’s reputation, improves long-term community loyalty, and ultimately benefits everyone — including those who converted on time.

I thank the team for showing fairness and vision. This is how serious protocols build lasting trust and success.

[Tut]

Honestly there’s barely any valid points as to why it shouldn’t pass.

1. “Undermining governance credibility”.

Governance is governance. If anything this supports governance credibility. Anything and everything when it comes to the project should be able to be voted on, even if it had been voted on already as dumb as it sounds. Just because its put up to a vote does not mean it will pass. Crypto at its core is about decentralization the highest previous vote only had 50 votes with most ranging around 20. This is terrible versus the amount of holders. Not much people can do about it until a big event that splits people (something like this) sends people flocking to vote. Usually when that happens with projects and people actually start voting, earlier proposal get looked at again that passed with little to no votes.

As for arbitrage trading. Who cares? Anyone who buys maple now is taking in a big risk as this vote is clearly split down the middle. That’s if they can even buy maple due to it only being on a dex barely pulling any volume so they’ll have to take a net loss anyway if they attempt to buy MPL. If the vote starts to pass then i’m sure people will gain the confidence to buy mpl, with the low volume it will result in mpl rising which gives those who just want to offload their mpl and be done.

These are about the only two validish points I’ve seen. I’m someone who converted on time and I was upset on seeing this proposal at first. But if I’m honest the only reason I was, was because now we’re giving more people a chance to sell (either original maple holders or arbitrage traders), quite literally the only reason I was against the proposal (which I’m sure is the same reason many of you are as well no matter how you slice it). Which is why I ended up changing my mind on the stance as I’m sure if I missed the window I’d be just as ansty as everyone else here.

[bellonoff]

Agree with @delucamike on a conversion smart contract limited to a snasphot of wallets and balances at cut-off. MPL holders that have sold, would need to buy back their MPL (with a cap at their snaphot balance, preventing arbitrage).

Without this restriction, a proposal targeted at long time MPL holders that were off line for different reasons could benefit significantly arbitrageurs. Looking at the MPL balance changes since the conversion cut-off by holder group (detail here):

1. CEXs have grown their MPL balance by ~250K.
2. Size holders in the 1K-10K category have increased their MPL balance by ~41.5K.

Both categories can hold a significant share of arbitrageurs. If conversion goes ahead without a snapshot check, it would be potentially allocating up to ~291.5K MPL to arbitrageurs vs ~320K MPL to stable holders with 1K MPL or less (that are likely the real target of this proposal).

[rasputin]

This was exactly me as well. Long term investment. wasn’t even aware of the migration

[necasworld]

Community, please read my observation of how an individual buying MPL now is trying to manipulate sentiment in this forum for personal gain, despite people suffering from this unfortunate situation. Here is a prime example of how manipulative people can be driven by pure greed. ZooTV frames himself as a loyal supporter, manipulating the discussion to prioritize his interests while appearing to champion fairness and decentralization. After following this forum, I noticed how strangely ZooTV defends arbitrage while diminishing the snapshot idea, pushing a false narrative that it involves “cost, complexity, and risk.” Meanwhile, an ex-developer stated this is not true and offered support free of charge, but ZooTV attacked this, as it doesn’t align with his manipulative tactics. He argues and undermines late converters, calling them “selfish” or seeking “special treatment for a few loud mouths,” etc., while knowing that 11% missed the deadline and many people have returned asking for help. Yet, in his last comment, he admitted to buying MPL at a discount post-deadline. This clearly shows his tactics to manipulate the discussion for his own interests. The community should critically evaluate his motives and consider safeguards like a snapshot to ensure genuine long-term holders are prioritized over speculators. I wasn’t sure about the snapshot initially, but now I truly believe we must implement it to weed out these bad actors who, driven by pure greed, are trying to benefit from this unfortunate situation.

[Wilsonco]

‘It weakens the project’s integrity’; respectfully, seeking short term gain at the expense of other Maple supporters is unmitigated avarice and reputational suicide. A 48 hour further migration window is the very definition of integrity, not to do so would personify the faceless uncaring banking the community is trying to replace.

[LaceR]

Hi !

To be honest with the community, i’m a truster and firmly believer in the maple ecosystem and expansion.

I invested in Maple and following my investment everyday…
I’m absolutely AGAINST a second window of migration and all technical problems that can be possible.

People has to be careful and watching all year long their own investment and if they don’t follow a project with possible evolution where they put money.. This is their fault, not the maple ecosystem problem.

This second window is also a disrespect for Maple himself about what they did, what they do and they will do. The reputation is completely intact because they respected what they said, so now, we need to go head.

If the people cannot be involve in the project, their investments and following the news about, they don’t deserve to be a part of it.

Kind regards

[LaceR]

I completely agree with your vision.
If the people cannot follow a project where they put money, they don’t care about, and so, they don’t deserve to be a part of it.
Will vote against the proposal.

Kind regards

[LaceR]

In this case, don’t put your money into a ecosystem or business that you can’t handle the loss, the changement or the evolution… That’s not fair for the people who spending 24 hours by day during all the year on it and respect the process, the project and the evolution.

[delucamike]

I think some people are misunderstanding my position and each other’s positions. There are some people talking past each other. Let me clarify some stuff.

I fully support this simple 48 extended conversion window proposal. Full stop.

I would also fully support a proposal to allow conversion indefinitely. I don’t believe there is ever any valid reason to cull token holders during a token migration. This would absolutely never fly in traditional finance (i.e. covert your TSLA to TSLA 2.0 before a deadline), and this shouldn’t fly in a crypto asset. We’re supposed to strive to be more decentralized, transparent, and better than TradFi, because the technology and the community allows us to be.

Now, a simple indefinite conversion process “favors” anyone who scooped up MPL while it is cheap, after the deadline, and “disfavors” anytime who sold their unconverted MPL after the deadline, because they thought they would never be able to convert again. SYRUP supply will be increased by the same amount regardless who is converting, so it simply does not matter if and how much arbitrage there was. I believe a simple indefinite conversion is the most pragmatic.

While it would be possible to create a conversion contract based off a snapshot (the original April 30th deadline) which only captures the remaining MPL not yet converted, and while I could and would be willing to write this contract and any indexing or front end package for free, there’s something we’re not considering. This would allow those who sold MPL after the snapshot/deadline to also have double dipped. They would have sold MPL and then still been able to convert that MPL snapshot balance. It’s the exact opposite but equal problem as before.

In light of this, the pragmatic solution is not to work off snapshot balances.

So again, I am for this 48-hour window simple conversion proposal (no snapshot). Full stop.

I would also be for an indefinite simple conversion (no snapshot). Full stop.

There’s interesting conversations to be had around future proposals with respect to snapshot-based conversions, and their mechanism. But that’s for another proposal, and I’d be happy to be involved in that conversation and in that process. But it should be separate from the process surrounding this proposal.

[mplstuck]

I held through the FTX-originated defaults, and it hurt at lot when I found out I missed the deadline by a week, so I am fully in favor of having an opportunity to convert.
Sometimes it seems that people forget these are not just simply tokens in a game, but real money, and for many, an important amount of money.
It’s common to see some of the greatest builders the space has, rallying to help in cases of hacks, I’ve even seen them help in cases where rookie users accidentally send tokens to the wrong contract or address.
To me this is a very similar situation in which the Maple community has a very straightforward path to help a lot of their fellow holders.

[Enscryptobroker]

If a conversion is allowed, it HAS to be at a reduced rate compared to whatever Syrup is trading at.

I’m not a math guy, but I know for those who converted before the deadline it was 1 MPL for 100 Syrup.

To avoid the arbitrage opportunity that would exist now we would have to implement this.

Again I’m not a math guy here and it would depend on the marketcap of Syrup, but maybe at the time of the new conversion it would be 1 MPL = 15 Syrup or whatever the math works out to.

I’m just making up numbers here. And it would take a bigger brain than me. But in no way should people who missed the deadline be able to get the same conversion rate.

Something is better than nothing. People shouldn’t be able to extract liquidity or hurt the chart.

[delucamike]

There is no reason at all for it to be at a reduced rate. Syrup is built off the back of Maple, and SYRUP is built off the back of MPL holders. If all you cared about was the chart, then not only is that indicative of greed, but it justifies future culling of token holders in the name of reducing the total supply and increasing scarcity, all for “the chart”.

Getting hung up on arbitrage is also a red herring, because if the MPL token was locked for transferring as of April 30th, the same amount of MPL would be eligible to be converted to SYRUP. As I mentioned before, it doesn’t matter at all who is going to be converting. The amount that will be convertible is the same as it was before and after the April 30th deadline. The only people hurt by those who gain from arbitrage are those who sold their post-April-30 deadline MPL to arbitrageurs. MPL arbitrageurs do not hurt SYRUP holders in any unique way.

If Alice had 100 MPL that she sold to Bob for 10 cents on the dollar, and Bob then was able to convert it to SYRUP during the new 48-hour window, it’s still 100 MPL being converted, regardless if Alice lost potential and Bob got a great deal.

[Enscryptobroker]

Yeah it’s exactly the same, minus the fact that it’s not.

As of right now:

100 syrup = $27.50
1 MPL = $2.61