Minswap Tokenomics - Use of proceeds danger

5,000,000,000 MIN total supply
500,000,000 ( team 10% 2.5yr vest )
500,000,000 ( dev fund 10% 2.5yr vest )

365x2.5 = 912
operating cost ( 2,000,000 min * 0.05 = 100,000 ada/day )
1,000,000,000/912 = 1,000,000 min/day ( labor )
1,000,000 ( daily emission - marketing )

revenue ( 9000ada/day )
2ada(batcher fee) * 2ada tx fee * 1000transactions/day = 4000ada/day
ada staking assumed 50% of 100M TVL = 50M ada staked @4% = 1.8M ada = 5000ada/day

Operating LOSS ( 91,000 ada/day )

This is a very clever team - but lets discuss the reality of the project.
how did a project team go from building for 1 year w/ 30,000ada catalyst funding to burning 3x that amount daily (90,000ada daily loss)! - Please explain why my math is wrong - I sincerely hope it is; otherwise this is an outright clever slow bleed and abuse of the cardano community and investors.


How do you figure that the cost of running Minswap costs 100,000 ADA per day???

You do realize that the 1 billion MIN is in a vestment period of 2.5 years? Meaning that the devs can’t sell any of it for 2 and a half years. Even if they were able to sell it now, they wouldn’t. At least not all at once. They would have to slowly sell it off to obtain maximum profit and not tank the MIN token.

Also the emission rate/mint rate of MIN is far higher than what you say considering the MINt locking and vesting for boosted MIN rewards. Meaning that the community would have at the very least 1 billion tokens after the end of the 2.5 year vesting period. Which is just as important as the devs having such a large portion of the MIN supply.

1 Like

I am glad you mentioned this, I actually was quite conservative even with those numbers in my opinion and did not include MINt in the calc. basically there are two emissions discussed - the dev+team fund ( which we all read and knew about in tokenomics ) AND the YF emissions farms ( which we also knew about ) -
These calculations were originally accepted with the general premise of a dominant dex ( pre-hack etc and general market downturn ).

These required a pivot in emissions schedules which the team does appear to be adjusting!

While I understand there IS a lockup period - this valuation is NOT about selling pressure or accusing the team of liquidation but more a calculation of the revenues required to offset the current emission rates. A simple due diligence would be sufficient.

emissions 100k, current inflows ( ada ) 10k… we expect inflows to grow at x% per month with projected profitability by 20months [ this is just an example of the one line response I would have expected from the team ]

When in truth it is actually much worse - tokens have no guarantee to revenue share! so they are not stock shares at all but rather a token with zero utility - it does not matter how you slice the emissions; so if we have this much conflict at this layer… I am not sure what we are fighting for at all…


again I emphasize, this is about my own understanding and hopefully bringing to light additional information for the community of how these projects are run, and general health of the project for transparency - it is not about price or if the team is selling or not selling their shares. I like many others actually hold a good amount of MIN and believe the FV to be much higher than current prices. This is a request for additional transparency after 2+ years of investment, trust and blind support in this team.


I understand where you are coming from and i agree this should be talked about more, and brought under a deeper review.