Request to Reopen MPL → SYRUP Conversion for Missed Long-Term Holders

Proposal Forum
1

Hello Maple community,

My name is Mehmet Kutlu İnceoğlu. I am a long-term holder of MPL tokens and unfortunately missed both the original and extended SYRUP conversion windows due to delayed communication and limited access from my region.

I currently hold ~19 MPL tokens (~$1,150 in SYRUP terms), which I was hoping to convert to SYRUP to continue participating in the Maple ecosystem.

I fully understand that the window has closed, and that any reopening requires governance approval. I am writing this post to gather community feedback and gauge support for a limited, possibly one-time extension or manual conversion opportunity for small holders like myself who missed the process unintentionally.

Would the community be open to discussing this?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

— Mehmet Kutlu İnceoğlu

15 Likes
2

Hi I am a very long term holder. I have 201 Maple tokens and i have just found out about the conversion. This is completely unfair that I cannot convert these tokens at a fair value. Its very hard to keep track of many coins and what is happening. I am begging please can we open up another window for conversion. As obviously Maple Finance is worth absolutely nothing.

12 Likes
3

I am begging the community this is a huge financial loss that i will not be able to absorb. :frowning: I would like to support the Syrup community moving forward. Please

14 Likes
4

After being a diamond hands holder and not selling my MPL tokens after so long, to check back on my holdings and to see that they are worth $0 is devastating.

The conversion window must be reopened. Unclaimed tokens are not owned by the project, they are our tokens and to dismiss unclaimed tokens like that is like theft.

The Maple team must seek a remedy with their long-term unclaimed holders. This project’s reputation is on the line. Any success or value increase that this project has without remedy to unclaimed tokens, only strengthens our case.

Do you not want your holders to tune out the noise of the market and sleep well at night, knowing their assets are deployed properly, or do you want us nervous and anxious, watching and waiting? Karma comes around, it always does.

15 Likes
5

Hi,

I would like to add my support to this proposal, being another long-term holder that was not aware of the conversion. I appreciate the community may feel that sufficient notice was given through the governance forum, social media and exchange announcements, but I suspect there are many early supporters who held our units on private wallets with a long-term investment mentality and therefore did not receive these notifications or follow closely day-to-day. The 6-month conversion timeline also seems shorter than other projects/tokens (1+ year) and on that basis, would like to appeal to the community to offer another conversion window.

Thanks
Matt

14 Likes
6

Hi, I’m experiencing the same issue. It seems strange that there are deadlines involved. I’ve actually spent money to purchase these tokens, so I don’t understand why I’m unable to convert them. Why isn’t there a pool or mechanism in place for this purpose? I’ve been holding my tokens in a cold wallet for several years and haven’t seen any announcements about this.

12 Likes
7

I want to weigh in respectfully but firmly

The conversion window was open for six months, followed by a second chance for latecomers. That is already more than most protocols allow.

If someone missed both deadlines, especially while holding assets in cold storage, the responsibility is theirs — not the protocol’s, and certainly not the community’s.

Reopening the window a third time would set a dangerous precedent: that deadlines in Maple governance are optional and can be re-litigated endlessly. That undermines the integrity of everything we’ve built.

I strongly oppose further extension.

At some point, accountability matters. You missed it. It is what it is.

Respectfully — it’s time to move forward.

2 Likes
9

If members are concerned about manipulation, price impact, or other issues, the protocol or governance could provide an option for latecomers or long-term holders to submit a signed application form, including their wallet addresses. The transaction dates can be easily verified, making this a simple and secure solution. The process might not be fully automated with instant refunds, but offering such an option should be considered a matter of responsibility for the governance|protocol members.

6 Likes
10

I appreciate the thoughtful tone and intent to find a balanced solution. However, introducing an exception-based process—even one involving manual verification—opens the door to governance drift.

The original conversion period lasted six months, followed by a second extension. That’s already more than most protocols offer, and it reflects Maple’s commitment to fairness. But fairness must also include finality.

If we start validating signed forms retroactively, we shift from governance through code to governance through negotiation—and that sets a dangerous precedent. It creates uncertainty not just for latecomers, but for those who followed the rules and trusted that the protocol would hold the line.

The flagged post by Kishore underscores this point. The community has already spoken. It’s time we honor that signal.

I also have serious concerns about the implications of this proposal. Asking users to submit signed forms and wallet addresses sets a precedent that undermines the trustless, decentralized foundation Maple is built on. It introduces bureaucracy where there should be finality, and exposes wallet data that was never meant to be tied to identity or off-chain systems.

Maple governance worked exactly as intended: a clear process, generous timelines, and open communication. If someone missed both opportunities—especially while keeping assets in cold storage—that responsibility belongs to them, not to the protocol, and certainly not to the community.

Reintroducing manual exceptions only weakens protocol credibility, invites potential exploitation, and risks the very thing we’re trying to protect: the long-term integrity of SYRUP. No more reopenings. No paperwork. No identity-based appeals.

We followed the code. Now it’s time to move forward.

3 Likes
11

Hi!
I’m also long-term holder with 25 MPL tokens on my ledger.
Please re-open the conversion to SYRUP.
All the best!
Peter

10 Likes
12

I have also 2 friends with the same situation.
BR,
Peter

7 Likes
13

First of all, I´m also a long term holder of MPL and I also missed the deadline. I can understand your point saying that things which are decided upon should stay decided.
However if things were not optimal e.g. a deadline which was too short then it should be possible to adjust that decission.
I missed out not only bc I expect tokens of such wonderfull projects don´t change that fast and because I tuned out of X (which was a sesspool of racism) and out of Telegram bc it is rife with scammers.
Last but not least, I don´t share your experience that most protocols apply even shorter deadlines. Maybe for trivial changes, but for changes that serious, it reduces your investment to zero, longer periods are applied or multiple periods over a longer period of time.. An idea could be that for a second conversion a slightly less favourable concersion rate would apply..

6 Likes
14

Let’s be honest. This isn’t a conversation anymore — this is a coordinated optics push.

Two of the most vocal commenters in support of reopening (including Shillfinger) created accounts less than a week ago, with posts following just an hour or two later. Their comments mimic the same sympathetic structure:
• “I’m a long-term holder too…”
• “I missed the deadline as well…”
• “Protocols should be more flexible…”

But then pivot into:
• “Let’s just reopen it.”
• “Others missed it, so it’s fair.”
• “Maybe offer a slightly worse conversion.”

This is not organic debate. This is narrative engineering designed to undercut what should be immutable governance decisions — decisions that protect long-term investors and institutions who depend on stability, finality, and confidence in the system.

Let me be clear:

Creating burner accounts to reframe a passed decision is not governance. It’s manipulation.

This forum isn’t a customer service desk. It’s where we set the precedent for how future decisions will be respected — or undermined.

So, before anyone praises the “empathy” of latecomers, ask yourself:
• Why are the loudest voices suddenly appearing from accounts created hours or days ago?
• Who benefits from bending the rules?
• What signal does this send to institutions eyeing this protocol?

We followed the code. The vote passed. A line was drawn.

No more reopenings. No retroactive lobbying. No governance by sock puppets.

2 Likes
15

Dear all,

I’m writing to you today as a long-term investisor in the Maple project. This message is personal, sincere and grounded in a strong belief : that this community has immense value, and that Maple’s long-term vision is worth supporting.

I’ve invested twice in the previous Maple token, with the clear intent of standing by the project through its development and evolution. As the saying goes in the crypto world, “Hodl” and I did so with patience, trust, and a deep belief in what you’re building.

I’ve never chased short-term gains or tried to play the market. My commitment has been steady. Today i found myself in a position where I was unable to complete the migration to the new token, and I’m humbly appealing to your understanding, your empathy, and the best part of yourselves as builders of a decentralized, fair, and resilient ecosystem.

I’ve read the existing discussions on the forum, including a comment suggesting that reopening migration would harm Maple’s credibility. With all due respect, I strongly disagree. I believe that Maple’s credibility is strengthened, not weakened, by showing fairness, compassion, and integrity - especially towards those who really believed in the project.

Allowing one final, exceptionnal opportunity for migration in this specific and limited case does not compromise the rules. Instead, it sends a powerful message : Maple takes care of its long-term community members and does not abandon those who stood by it early on.

Thank you for your time, for reading, and - I hope -for your support. This gesture may not change Maple’s tokenomics, but it would mean a lot to a dedicated member of your community.

*As someone who believes in Maple for the long run, I’m not asking for immediate action - only the assurance that, one day, the door to migration won’t be closed forever.

5 Likes
16

Although I can’t verify whether burner accounts are being used, it’s just as important not to disregard the legitimate concerns of long-term MPL holders. My main point is that the initial 6-month conversion window was quite short, especially considering the magnitude of the migration. Those who missed this short deadline should have a fair chance to recover their value, even if this means applying some conditions — instituting a one-year lock-up on newly converted tokens for example.

Not an expert, but I also don’t see a clear reason why allowing late conversions would undermine the protocol’s stability or governance, particularly since many other projects offer much longer, or even open-ended, migration periods with no similar concerns. Ultimately, I believe that SYRUP’s willingness to provide a pathway to former MPL holders should be viewed positively by both long-term investors and institutions.

5 Likes
17

Mattck1, I hear the tone of your message and respect your right to voice concerns, but we need to be clear:
This isn’t just about sympathy — it’s about governance integrity, precedent, and the future of SYRUP as an institutional-grade asset.

The migration window was not short. It was:
• Public
• Transparent
• Lasted six months
• Followed by community reminders and extensions

That’s already more generous than most protocols. And now — only after significant SSF progress was publicly mentioned by Sid 18 days ago — we’re seeing a coordinated narrative shift to reframe this closed chapter. That’s not organic concern. That’s opportunism.

You even acknowledged potential burner accounts — yet dismissed them as irrelevant. That’s alarming.

Proposing a one-year lock-up on late conversions doesn’t fix the problem. It still rewards those who ignored governance and it weakens every vote, allocation, and market decision made under the assumption that the MPL-to-SYRUP window was final.

Let’s not forget:

Institutions aren’t attracted to protocols that bend the rules when emotions rise — they’re drawn to protocols that can say “no” and stand by it.

If we start reopening migrations because a few latecomers feel regret, we’ve set a dangerous precedent:
• That decisions don’t really matter.
• That timelines are fluid.
• That structure is optional.

That’s not what SYRUP is building.
And it’s not how serious capital behaves.

Let’s honor those who did migrate — and let this be the last time this topic undermines what should be settled governance.

2 Likes
18

Let’s be honest. This isn’t about fairness or community anymore — it’s about liquidity.

The migration window was clear. The governance vote was final. This wasn’t rushed, hidden, or unfair. But now — just 18 days after Sid mentioned progress on the SSF and protocol revenue crossed $1M — we’re suddenly flooded with sympathetic posts calling for a reopening?

That’s not coincidence. That’s coordination.

This is not a grassroots cry for justice. It’s a strategic attempt to reintroduce old MPL supply into circulation — under softer terms — so insiders and market makers can access deeper liquidity without moving price.

If you want to inject more liquidity into the market, say that.

But don’t insult the holders who migrated on time — who respected finality — by cloaking this in the language of empathy.

Finality builds trust. Reopening breaks it.

SYRUP is supposed to be an institutional-grade asset — not a sympathy token.

We don’t need diluted narratives. We need disciplined governance.

3 Likes
19

Dear Sir/Mme,
I feel disappointed that you think of this, this way..
I supported (and still do) Maple finance. The best way I could think how to do that was to buy the token and hold it. It never crossed my mind to participate with the governance part.
I saw it as how I would do it if I would buy shares from a public listed company. I don’t go to the annual shareholder meetings.
And with me probably a lot of people felt this way.
It was only after I learned that my only option was to have a vote, that I created an account and left my story.
And this is not a burner account. The username Shillfinger isn’t a username that is used a lot, so I don’t use it lightly. Find me on Reddit if you like.
It really surprises me that you’re so hellbent on people who ask for a reopening bc they feel that the time was to short. I’m not here to bend the rules, I’m here to point out that 6 months is a very short period time to reach enough people bc there are a lot of people who can’t tune in every six months. And I’m sure not even half of people who bought the MPL token have an account on this community.
And institutions will also find that six months is a very short period to give investors the chance to save their investment. I can still change the original paper fiat currency from my country into Euro and that window opened 26 years ago.
Does this mean that this is the way to go? No, but that should give you an idea that 6 months is very short. And institutions also appreciate the ability of a community to right wrongs.
I hope I haven’t upset you too much, that has never been my goal.

8 Likes
20

I appreciate the conviction behind this post — especially the importance of honoring governance and maintaining credibility with serious capital. These values matter deeply. But I’d like to offer a counterpoint that’s rooted in pragmatism, not sentiment.

Re-opening the MPL-to-SYRUP conversion window isn’t about emotions or regret. It’s about system resilience.

Let’s be honest: the initial window was launched during a period of rapid ecosystem changes, evolving communication, and unclear UX around the migration. A one-time re-opening — with clear boundaries and consequences — doesn’t weaken governance. It strengthens it by acknowledging the reality that no system gets everything perfect on the first pass.

Governance isn’t about never changing. It’s about knowing when to stand firm and when to adapt — especially when the long-term health of the protocol is at stake.

Institutions aren’t just looking for inflexible systems. They’re looking for credible neutrality, thoughtful mechanisms, and protocols that are willing to correct course when it improves ecosystem alignment. Rigid timelines may seem principled, but they can also punish participation and engagement — especially if early processes were flawed.

Re-opening the window — once, with a lock-up — doesn’t say “structure is optional.” It says “structure can evolve responsibly.” That’s not weakness. That’s maturity.

Let’s find the balance between honoring those who acted and making sure we’re not building a system that quietly punishes long-term contributors due to short-term missteps. This isn’t about endless accommodations. It’s about a one-time decision that reflects both compassion and strategic clarity.

That is what SYRUP should be building.

6 Likes
21

How can we initiate a vote for or against reopening the conversion window? Isn’t that what a decentralized system is meant for? To propose ideas, vote on them, and let the majority decide.
It shouldn’t be up to a small group of people to make that decision alone — the community should have the power to choose through a fair vote.
And I truly hope the community will respond positively to this proposal. Because if something similar were to happen to others in the future, they would surely appreciate the chance to recover the true value of their tokens thanks to a fair and open-minded community.

9 Likes