Minswap Token Burn

This % is of the total supply. If you look closely the actual percentage of the dev fund which is burnt is bolded under each option. :smiley:

I will get ahead of the gun on this one and answer this before the question pops up. “Why isn’t the dev fund being burned in the same % as the public emissions fund?”

The % may not be even, but the value is made up for 10 fold. Let me explain:

The % offset of total allocation is only achieved at full dilution. That’s not for another 8-10 years even after a 40% burn.

If we didn’t burn anything, the part of the public emissions that is in question right now would not even be available to us for at least 8 years. However, the teams dev fund that is being cut is actually already available and will be fully available by March 2025.

The team is willing to cut their existing dev fund in almost half and risk having less funds to pay developers, team, and the people who actually build Minswap for the next 8-10 years. Although the percentage burn may not be exactly proportionate, the team is sacrificing more in allowing it to happen than we are. As it stands the dev fund is not used to farm, stake, or even vote as not to alter or dilute min holders. It is nothing more than a reserve fund that is used to pay people for their work and it is now being cut in half.

That’s just my take on it. The slight % in burn difference is made up for with the value of the availability of the token.

We may lose on a little MIN set to be released 8+ years from now, but the team is losing almost half of the MIN set to be released a year from now (and maybe even some that is already released depending on which they choose to burn).

At the same time it is not prudent cut too much of this reserve either. I would rather have a healthy and well funded protocol than one that is on its last legs and scrambling for funds from the treasury, etc. Have seen many DEXs that are in this situation or have been in this situation and they are down to their last legs.

1 Like

It is clear minswap community large majority is happy with a burn, even more aggressive one proposed. I think the 20-40% is the sweet spot for short term moral boost and long term emissions viability. The token burn will put us more aligned with other successful dexes and remove objections around tokenomics.

Great proposal!


Nice reply and good effort on the proposal. My issue is that Minswap is undoubtedly becoming more centralized and aggressively so. At best from the community perspective about half of the current circulating supply will be with the team by March 2025. This doesn’t count the current distribution breakdown that is already heavily in the team’s favor. We see this reflected in governance that doesn’t exist in any way that looks decentralized.

We hear mention of changes to vesting schedule yet the policy ID remains unlocked. There has been no wallet transparency for team distributions yet we are to believe they sit idly in wallets.And in the same breath we are told individual team members also yield farm and vote. We should assume that the core team and associates “in their individual capacities” are picking the tokenomics apart like culture vultures to roadkill. It’s bogus. Rich getting richer. When will Cardano start to really DAO!?


Thank you. All I can say is that many community members have expressed the need for a better governance system. I also just put together a DEX study and it gathered some interest and became this with the help of some other members for which I am grateful.

Right now there seems to be community members interested in drafting a solid governance structure. However, its one thing to just spit out ideas like 90% of people do. Its another to conduct a detailed case study and cost-benefit-analysis and bring it to a community in a professional manner. It won’t all happen over night, but if you compare it from a year ago, it definitely is progress.

Also, I understand your concerns, but there is no denying that this is a step forward with the team willing to burn almost 50% of their existing dev fund and make the token a scarce asset in order to focus on resource management. A year ago this would have been a pipedream, but after much analysis the numbers made sense to many :grinning: and the team showed that they are willing to take feedback and adapt.

Side Note:

Governance is super tricky. We cannot end up like some big protocols (which I will not name) that have one person fighting off the whole community for a bad proposal to pump token price while harming the protocol. There has to be a better structure and whether people like it or not, the team will have to have a say in the way things go. Any startup founders, do not give away their voting rights till the company matures and has many vested parties. Sure to us its another Cardano project, to the founders a project like Minswap can only mean a lot more. This is not a pump and dump token and the numbers speak for themselves. Minswap has a huge impact on the cardano ecosystem so any changes that are to be made must have rigorous research and all possibilities must be considered.

I will soon begin research and data gathering on the best governance structures in the industry and see if I can put together another study in the coming months. Feel free to dm me with any that you think I should take a look at on Discord :smiley:

Step in the right direction for now. Many more to come. For now lets celebrate all we have accomplished in 2023. :wine_glass:


I figured this may be unfair as well. That is why I used a weighted average of 50% tvl and 50% avg volume per year (cumulative volume/ years active) to smooth it out. Uniswap was the first of its kind indeed, but that is the best way I could think of making it as fair as possible. The goal was to study what successful DEXs have done and the schedules they have to how that can be applied to our case. Despite the heavy weightage of Uniswap which only had a 4 year emissions schedule planned at inception, we still ended up with a emission duration more than 8 years. Putting Uniswap aside, imo it just doesn’t seem wise to manage a company’s resources 8 years from now or to even assume we would be around by then in an industry that is a baby compared to tradfi, but more volatile than any asset known to date. I did the best I could with the information available to the public :man_shrugging:


Your math is fuzzy like a plucked chicken. Let’s simplify. The team will get between 1.2-1.6 million $min every single day until middle 2025. What is the daily farm emission? Maybe half of the lower? No doxxed wallets for team tokens and dev funds. Overwhelming community support :grin:

1 Like

You should be able to find the particulars in the DEX study. Tried to explain as clear as I could there.

You can dm me if you have questions about any math. I would rather not drag that out here.

The t team gets 4x daily farm emissions right now. Community dilution is already here, not in the future.

I will vote option 4- Well this type of burning if I like it!!!,

1 Like

This proposal draws parallels to the scenario of politicians determining their own salaries, reflecting concerns about the potential use of the DAO’s authority for the benefit of existing MIN token holders. The focus appears to be on manipulating the value of previously accrued yield and acquisition prices rather than advancing the objectives of the Minswap project.

While previous adjustments to yield farming emissions were made to optimize liquidity incentives, the proposal now advocates for a complete overhaul of the project’s foundational tokenomics. A comparison with other DEXs regarding the time to full emission is introduced, raising questions about the rationale behind manually doubling this duration beforehand.

Notably, this proposal seems contrary to the broader goals of decentralization and increasing liquidity depth, as the burn targets undistributed yield farming incentives. Furthermore, it raises apprehensions about the project’s long-term sustainability by impacting the development fund, essential for the ongoing enhancements of the DEX.

Rather than burning the hard-earned value amassed by Minswap through exceptional UI, UX, and community-funded liquidity, a more strategic choice is reallocating any excess funds for constructive purposes. With approximately 16 to 19 million ADA in MIN tokens at stake using current prices, redirecting these resources allows for meaningful improvements, avoiding favoritism towards existing token holders. This sizable sum could be more judiciously reallocated towards endeavors to enhance the DEX’s features and functionality in the long run.

The practice of artificial scarcity and alterations to tokenomics tends to position MIN as a speculative asset, diverting attention from its real utility, including fee switch sharing, voting power, farming rewards and swap fee reduction. This shift encourages treating MIN as a tradable asset, overlooking its intrinsic role as a share in the protocol.

The inclusion of an option to abstain from the burn is acknowledged and appreciated. However, the other presented options seem to function more as a psychological experiment, testing the extent to which stakeholders are willing to proceed with a burn, without presenting substantive arguments for the genuine betterment of Minswap itself.


I think it comes down to this. The min being burned will not be accesible 8+ years from today. Why allocate resources for 23 years when we can’t even guarantee what happens in 1 crypto cycle. This burn shows responsible management of resources and focus on a timeline where it is crucial for the protocol to show why it deserves to stick around for even those 8 years.

Imo this isn’t an overhaul. It shows a protocol that is able to admit its mistakes and adapt. This literally changes nothing day to day. The only people losing money is the team as they are forced to burn funds set to be released in a year vs the community who is sacrificing MIN that isnt accesible 8 years from now. Idk how that is a politician pumping their salary when they are literally cutting it in half.

Also there have been many improvements and token utility and I am sure there will continue to be with v2 and further adaptations to staking, farming, better governance, etc.

Imo this shows good stewardship of community interest and protocol viability.


This is a very persuasive proposal however i would like to craft a counter argument for the sake of robustness before anything goes on chain, since the proposal itself is agnostic of criticism. Perhaps, as a guidance for governance going forward, if a forum proposal receives ascendency (50 votes) then also give a window for counter arguments/criticism in order for amendments to synthesize a more robust proposal that integrates the best from all parties. We all have blind spots. Not gonna die on this hill at this point though. In saying that, tokenomics proposals are a big deal and so i would hope that they would not be glided over so easily. Yes i know that i am risking miring you in the drudgery of the back and forth.


Great proposal guys. Video will be out later today.


Post link here after posted :muscle:

1 Like

we want 70% burn option. 9 years is still to long for emissions


I agree with your some opinion.

My concern is decreasing revenue every month.

If Liquidity Provider do not have earn enough revenue, they will move to another Swap Sites steadily.

Also, Many people compared swap fee and benefits to other sites and they also will prefer use new Dex and Swap. It can lead to break Minswap community.

That is reason why Holders and Liquidity Provider have to earn good benefits.

whatever dev team and community have decide to burn Min token or not, Liquidity Provider and holders have to protect values and get good benefits


Burn until the Total Supply is 1 Billion or under 1 Billion. We will support getting Funds from Project Catalyst to Develop the project as a loved community of Minswap. please make one Min = $2 or more only way is by burning huge tokens


Video about burning $MIN tokens is now online. I think as many MIN token holders should be aware of this proposal before the vote is placed on chain.


great bro keep up the awesome work!!!


I believe it is good timing to consider this now. I Concur with this proposal to vote.