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

Proposal Forum
69

As a long-term supporter and holder of Maple, I view this situation through a practical lens, particularly given my role as a fund manager in the space. Here’s a simple risk analysis regarding the MPL conversion issue:

Risk of Allowing Further Conversion:

1. Arbitrage Concerns
The arbitrage opportunity here is trivial, at best a five-figure inefficiency relevant only to small trades (~$10k) given the lack of DEX liquidity (feel free to check for yourself). Besides, arbitrage is a natural market function, and this scale of arbitrage pales in comparison to the potential ~$40M loss of backer funds if conversions are blocked.

Risks of Not Allowing Further Conversion:

1. Legal Liability
With ~$40M of unconverted funds at stake, the liability risk is substantial. Lawsuits over significantly smaller amounts are common, and numerous affected individuals have already self-identified, simplifying any potential collective action. This is a clear and preventable risk.

2. Negative Precedent
To attract institutional adoption, conversion processes should ideally be automatic and seamless, mirroring traditional equities markets. In equity markets, actions such as acquisitions (THRN going private), divestments (ILMN divesting GRAL), or ticker changes (FB to META; SQ to XYZ) are managed automatically, requiring no investor intervention. Even well-known crypto conversions (MKR/SKY, FTM/S, MATIC/POL, RBN/AEVO) have set no strict deadlines. Imposing a strict deadline without extensive notification sets a problematic precedent of becoming untouchable to long term passive investors.

3. Sentiment Damage
Digital assets thrive on narrative and sentiment. Burning ~11% of investors (potentially as high as 25-33% when excluding treasury, team, and VC holdings) guarantees lasting negativity. Even if lawsuits are avoided, the reputational damage could be irreparable.

Recommendations to Mitigate These Risks:

  • Maximize Publicity: Ensure the re-opening of conversions is heavily publicized, partnering with exchanges like Coinbase that previously provided inadequate notifications. Aim for as close to 100% conversion as possible.
  • Long-Term Solution: Offer an ongoing solution, such as placing remaining SYRUP tokens as indefinite limit orders at a 1 MPL exchange rate on DEXes. While the additional one-time conversion is ideal and cleaner, this could provide an additional fallback that would virtually eliminate residual liability and potential community discontent.

The team is crushing it, and all engines are going, so avoiding a sentiment crisis or legal complications should be a straightforward priority. I hope this perspective is helpful.

15 Likes
70

I don’t think people who bought MPL after the deadline should be rewarded.

If a snapshot can be taken for an airdrop of those holding right till the deadline, that would be fair.

For everyone saying it would be too expensive to airdrop everyone holding at the deadline (not the buyers after the deadline), their Ethereum address is the same on Basechain. Just airdrop them on Base so the fees are very minimal for the team.

3 Likes
71

I’m a large Syrup holder and have been actively involved with Maple/Syrup for over three years. My background is in traditional capital markets: I work on both equity and debt offerings, including SEC-registered and exempt deals. What drew me to Maple in the first place was the clear vision and potential of on-chain capital markets.

That said, I was extremely frustrated when, right in the middle of a bull market, the team decided to push through the MPL-to-SYRUP migration. While others sold, I held my position, only to watch my stake drop 60–70% in value.

Now, this new proposal risks opening up another can of worms. It introduces fresh uncertainty, threatens renewed sell pressure, and undermines the governance decisions we already endured. I don’t have the appetite to go through this again. If this proposal moves forward, I’ll be exiting my position.

I call upon every other large Syrup holder to consider this carefully. Let’s be honest: six months was more than fair for the conversion. We did our due diligence and acted in time. Why should we now pay the price for others’ inaction and take on more downside risk because they didn’t?

The people suddenly resurfacing to complain are not long-term contributors, they’re free riders trying to squeeze quick profits. And let’s be real: if you reopen the conversion now, there will be others who miss that deadline too, and the cycle of complaints will continue. You can’t build a project on endless appeasement. You can’t please everyone, and trying to do so will cost us all.

Let’s protect the integrity of governance and the community that actually showed up. Vote no on this proposal.

2 Likes
72

My opinion how conversions should be done in general:

  1. Airdrop to old token holders; if that not possible than 2.
  2. Directly/ personally communicated process of conversion to all holders; if that not possible than 3.
  3. Conversion period (flexible) should be extended e.g. one month over the end of trading period for old token; if that not possible than 4.
  4. Conversion period unlimited; if that not possible than 5.
  5. No conversion at all!
2 Likes
73

I’m a top 30 SYRUP holder (aka whale), and I’ll be voting against this misguided proposal, for all the reasons outlined above. It undermines governance, rewards inaction, and sets a dangerous precedent

74

I’m sorry to see that you couldn’t make the conversion within the allotted time.
For a former developer from Maple, this reflects a significant lack of attention and a certain lack of professionalism to no longer follow a project you were involved in, especially one in which you still hold assets. You justify your former status as a guarantee of trust, even though you no longer work for them. The outcome remains the same: a DAO vote was conducted and must be followed. FULL STOP

75

And eventually, if the votes are in favor for the migration window.
The SNAPSHOT on 30th April is an absolute obligation.
And not 1 MPL = 100 SYRUP, because first, the 30th April, the price was not at the current level, second, apply a “late” % conversion rate is totally normal.
You’re not pragmatic just greedy as the rest of the people who are complaining, because you’re late and not according the consideration to Maple Road Map… as all complainers here. FULL STOP

76

As I mentioned before, a migration based off of balance snapshots from April 30th means that people who sold MPL since then would have double dipped: they would be able to convert based off a past balance and also have made money selling that balance since. It’s an opposite but equal arbitration problem.

Further, the fact that arbitrage is happening has no effect on Syrup holders. If an additional 100,000 MPL will be converted in this additional 48-hour window, it doesn’t matter weather all or some of that MPL was held since April 30th, or has been acquired for cheaper since April 30th; the total circulating supply of SYRUP will increase by 100,000 just the same. The only losers would be those who sold their MPL after the deadline thinking they would no longer be able to convert.

Further, the rate of 1 MPL for 100 SYRUP has no bearing on what the prices of the individual tokens are. Again, arbitrage on the MPL side only creates winners with respect to losers on the MPL side; it does not uniquely create winners with respect to losers for SYRUP.

If the price of MPL went up with respect to SYRUP since the deadline, you wouldn’t be arguing to increase the conversion to 1 MPL for 200 SYRUP, and neither would I.

It’s about being principled.

5 Likes
77

I’m a top ten syrup holder, I’ll be voting for this proposal. This is how governance works, no undermining here. It wasn’t inaction it was a lack of information. The real risk is the lawsuits, costing millions. So, yes, I’m backing this.

11 Likes
78

I strongly support giving people a fair chance. From what I can see, most didn’t miss the deadline because of a mistake—they simply weren’t aware of it. As a crypto holder since 2017, I can guarantee you that keeping up with every development in this space is practically a full-time job.

Imagine if it were you: You discover Maple Finance in 2021. You love the vision, are excited about the project, and decide to invest. You’re passionate about reading its vision and so committed that when the MPL token price rises, you pour even more money into it. Over the years, you watch the price swing from $5 to $60, down to $3, then up to $30, and so on. It’s hard, very hard, but you build trust in the team, believe in the project, and sit on your hands. Months, years go by, and you haven’t sold a single token. You’re a long-term investor and believer, ignoring the haters. You’re happy with the development and have even more assurance that you made the right choice. With three kids and a demanding job, you barely have time for crypto, so you carry on with life. You check Twitter on and off but not as frequently as before. As you remain calm, you’ve learned these market fluctuations are normal, and your investment just needs time for adoption. After four long years of hodling, one day during a routine weekly check on your portfolio, you’re devastated to find one of your larger investments has plummeted to zero. All that trust, belief, and perseverance through bear markets—gone. In shock, you dig through Telegram and Twitter only to learn there was a token migration. Despite being an early investor and loyal supporter, you’re left with nothing.

Hundreds of people here share similar stories. What did they do wrong? It’s incredibly easy to miss a critical announcement in the fast-paced world of crypto, especially for older investors who prefer to invest and move on with their lives. These individuals watched their token’s value collapse, only to discover they missed a migration they were never aware of.

Isn’t this exactly why we have governance and voting mechanisms for situations like this? Bitcoin and other chains were built to help people, empower to protect their wealth from things like bank failures, and enable decentralized finance—storing wealth, lending, and borrowing.

You guys talk about credibility, defined as the quality of being trusted and believed in. Yet we punish those who showed that trust for years? Early b elievers who got caught off guard deserve support. We should use a governance vote to show the kind of credibility that keeps the crypto community strong. This would support those affected by the situation we’ve created. These people lost their hard-earned money, and as a community, we should rally to help them rather than pointing fingers and saying, “It’s your fault.” If we don’t, we’re no better than the predatory banks we fight to replace.

In the end, I believe that we have to create a strong, compassionate community that helps each other and sets an example for others. This is the only way we can grow and attract like-minded people in the future.

13 Likes
79

Since the price of $MPL has not increased, this hypothesis is not admissible and is put forward by someone who brings it up because this example suits the position they are in. A conversion rate lower than the first migration, if the DAO vote supports the new migration, is the least that can be done given the developments in the ecosystem and the token’s price.

Let me be clear, this second migration seems to me to be a complete mistake given the choices made in the past. I am arguing to understand everyone’s points, but the basis of my conclusion is simple: the migration was in place from November 2024 to the end of April 2025, with extensive communication from Maple, all CEXs holding $MPL, and the holders. It was successful, and those who did not complete it can only blame themselves and should not shift the blame to Maple or those who completed the migration on time. This second migration will put the protocol in a precarious situation and may push current holders to abandon the project.

Moreover, your point of view is biased because you only consider your own situation and not the situation of those who currently hold $Syrup, who did things on time, diligently, and who have their assets at stake based on the direction the project will take. And as soon as these people speak up or counter your arguments, they are labeled as greedy… Your reasoning is simplistic and one-sided because you missed the train and are doing everything to get back on board, even if it means slowing it down or derailing it. I have nothing more to say except that the vote is on Wednesday, May 14.

1 Like
80

This right here is what it is about. It’s about helping people who are missing out on a opportunity to better themselves. If you are against that, well that speaks volumes about your character.

Just be happy others have a chance to be apart of the success we are experiencing, there is more then enough to go around.

5 Likes
81

Hello everyone,

In light of the increasing discussion around this topic, I would like to reiterate and clarify a few important points to help refocus the community on the long-term value of the project, rather than being distracted by short-term emotions or misunderstandings.

:small_blue_diamond: 1. The Intent of the Special Arrangement
This special migration arrangement is explicitly intended to assist real holders who failed to complete the redemption before the April 30 deadline. The official announcement has clearly stated that it is not intended to provide any opportunities for arbitrage.
Therefore, the community will no longer entertain discussions regarding “arbitrage.” Our focus should be on how to assist real holders in completing their redemption, as a way to show respect for the long-term supporters of the project.

:small_blue_diamond: 2. In Crypto, Holding Is the Strongest Form of Support
In crypto, holding is the highest form of trust and support for a project. I’m honestly tired of hearing people say, “I don’t participate in governance.” There’s nothing more meaningful than backing a project with your own assets.
In contrast, people who are constantly watching every update might just be waiting for the next exit. If you didn’t have trust in the project, you probably would’ve sold already.

:small_blue_diamond: 3. Passive Holders Are the Foundation of Every Great Project
Every project has a base of passive, long-term investors. These people set a price floor and aren’t easily shaken by short-term noise or market fluctuations.
The more of these investors a project has, the stronger and more resilient it becomes. Just look at BTC, ETH, and other large-cap projects—the bigger the market cap, the more silent believers there are quietly holding.

:small_blue_diamond: 4. DAO Proposals Deserve Respect—But They’re Not Untouchable
Yes, we respect DAO proposals, but that doesn’t mean they’re written in stone. Even presidential executive orders or government policies get revised when they’re found to be impractical.
So why can’t we amend ours?
If a DAO proposal demands the token hit $5 tomorrow, or asks Sid to do a striptease live on camera—do you really think the team should implement it just because it passed a vote?
Execution must be grounded in logic and feasibility. When a proposal has flaws, it should be revised or improved through new governance. That’s what makes a DAO stronger and more dynamic.

:small_blue_diamond: 5. Negative Sentiment Can Cripple the Project—And Hurt Current Holders the Most
When the community, Twitter, and major forums are filled with negative comments and doubt, the project’s credibility takes a serious hit.
A DeFi project should aim to help users grow their assets—not end up hurting long-term holders who have supported the team through thick and thin.
When trust breaks down, new buyers and potential partners will hesitate, or even turn away entirely. Every future marketing campaign will suffer diminished returns, and even the strongest project milestones may go unnoticed.
Most importantly, when a full-blown trust crisis and media backlash take hold, the ones who get hurt the most are the existing Syrup holders. Their holdings could lose value—not because of fundamentals, but because of shaken confidence, fear, and reputational fallout.

:small_blue_diamond: 6. Legal Risks Must Not Be Ignored
If multiple people decide to pursue legal action—even if they don’t win—the mere fact that it gets picked up by the media could be devastating for Syrup.
Given that the project has participated in SEC roundtable discussions, a legal and reputational crisis could trigger serious regulatory and operational consequences. We absolutely cannot underestimate this risk.

:small_blue_diamond: 7. Support Real Holders—Don’t Shut Them Out**
I understand that some people are worried about redemptions leading to token dumping, but honestly, that’s a short-sighted concern.
Syrup’s long-term value doesn’t come from preventing redemptions—it comes from building a product and community that no one wants to exit. The bull market is just beginning. I genuinely believe Syrup has the potential to reach $10 or more.
When the fundamentals are strong, diamond hands don’t sell—they accumulate. If we block real believers at the door because of fear, we’re sending the wrong message. We should be encouraging participation, not shutting people out.

:gem_stone: Final Thoughts
When only stSyrup holders are allowed to vote, while the actual MPL holders have no voice, it feels like letting the diners vote on whether to eat a cow—without anyone caring whether the cow agrees.
We hope the team takes this issue seriously and reconsiders who should truly have the voting rights in decisions that directly affect the core interests of MPL holders.

7 Likes
82

One last thing and possibility, if the migration is voted, the snapshot can be also done only for the eligible wallets who didn’t sell and hold $MPL after the migration, same amount before/same amount after until now and no transactions buy/sell between… so just for the REAL DIAMOND HOLDERS. And of course, not for the people who bought after, for the arbitrage speculation…

3 Likes
83

This right here is what all syrup holders need to be worried about. The risk is real and could bring this project down. So all you standing firm on principal or fear of the price dropping are risking your own syrup. The costs of voting against this outweigh the risks of not opening up the conversion. Would I prefer it being permanently open, yes. Let there be two tokens, one has voting power, the other doesn’t. If I could go back and vote again I would have never been in favour of a conversion deadline, it was a mistake.

8 Likes
84

This is just a blabla, all the communication was perfect to prevent this type of scenario with all CEX’S in the circle.

85

IMAGE 2025-05-12 22:56:20
IMAGE 2025-05-12 22:56:201280×785 66.8 KB

Do you think this diamond hand should be relocated?

1 Like
86

It would be possible to determine the array of token holders as of the April 30th deadline, and require them and only them two convert in the 48-hour window, assuming they still provide that amount of token at that next conversion time.

Keep in mind, while this is a good way to prevent accumulators from converting MPL they did not have prior to the deadline, it’s still allows for MPL holders who have sold their MPL at higher prices just after the April 30th deadline, and reacquired the tokens they need at a lower price in time for the next window.

Obviously, it’s still much better than a standard snapshot system, it is not as simple a smart contract to write, albeit totally feasible. I have full confidence that the team could write such a contract, or if they are stretched thin, I can help write it.

However, first, it’s unlikely that such a smart contract will be ready in time, snd I don’t think the problem is big enough to warrant pushing the window further back to wait for it.

Second, I still don’t think it’s really required since MPL winners are offset by MPL losers, and the total circulating supply of SYRUP will increase by the same amount regardless.

3 Likes
87

If anyone’s rambling, it’s you. Diamond hands are the ones who stay committed for years. You’re fixated on zero liquidity arbitrage while missing the real threat entirely. Just from your post, it’s obvious you don’t want others to benefit. We get it you’re against reopening. It doesn’t actually affect you, but you’d rather see people suffer. Now stick to your word and let this be your last comment unless you think you’re the only one allowed to change minds?

3 Likes
88

Many people mistakenly believe that legal issues only arise when CEXs or U.S. users are involved, but that’s far from the truth. Numerous DeFi projects have faced legal trouble due to community disputes, unfair governance, or user claims—even without any connection to centralized exchanges. There are already precedents for such cases around the world.
More importantly, when an unfair governance mechanism causes significant losses for users, the project can suffer devastating reputational damage—even if it ultimately wins in court. Reputation is the lifeblood of any DeFi project.
For a project like Syrup, which has participated in SEC roundtable discussions and is already on the radar of global regulators, a governance controversy that triggers public backlash or legal proceedings could severely impact relationships with partners—and potentially attract regulatory scrutiny.
This is why we must not underestimate such risks, nor dismiss issues of legality and fairness as irrelevant or harmless.

10 Likes