A fresh start for GTON

A little background and where we come from

When I first learned about GTON - or Graviton as it was then called - the main focus of the project was a multichain solution that was supposed to allow you to seamlessly use different chains with one account only. GTON, the protocol token of the Graviton system, was supposed to be used as the central relay token. Besides the fact that I had great confidence in the technical expertise of the team, I really liked the concept and this is also why I invested as one of the so-called early birds. The price of GTON was north of 2 USD at that time. This was two years ago.

Since then, GTON has pivoted several times. There were the pathway concept, bonding, candy and finally the concept to develop GTON’s own optimistic roll-up chain was developed.

The main difference to other optimistic roll-up solutions was however that the native currency of this chain is not GTON but instead a stable coin called GCD, which is used to pay for fees. Today, GTON has no real function anymore. Even the last remaining functionality - the possibility to use it as collateral to mint GCD was never activated, in my view mainly due to the low value and liquidity of the GTON token. Consequently, in the last proposal late last year the team proposed to convert the GTON tokens to OGX tokens, which would be the protocol token for a new DEX on the GTON chain.

Today, the GTON chain is up and running, but the adoption by attractive projects is lacking.

The dilemma we are facing
While I have no doubt that the technology behind the GTON network is super solid, we are facing a hen and egg problem. Without attractive protocols, there is simply no reason to use GTON network. On the other hand, without users there is no reason for an innovative protocol to deploy your project there.

The main approach that has been used by other chain - being it layer 1 or layer 2 - is to build a war chest by selling tokens, which can then be used for marketing and an incentive to new protocols. In many cases, VC funds are amongst these first investors.

However, this option is not simply available to GTON as 15% of their tokens are already outstanding. If the GTON Dao would sell tokens from their treasury, the risk for the fresh investors would be high that the original investors immediately dump, bringing the price under pressure from the start. The current market environment further complicates any capital raise, but that is something could of course change again.

The current approach
In the DAO voting from late last year it was proposed that GTON holders will be allowed to swap their tokens for OGX tokens. While I generally believe that allowing users to swap into another token and thus reducing the amount of outstanding GTON is one possibility to allow for a fresh start, I think that this is not going to work. The price of GTON is currently at 10 Cents or a token Market Cap of around 400k USD. At this price I would rather stay in GTON as it also represents a share of the DAO Treasury, which is currently at USD 2.3m or more than 70 Cents per GTON token. On top, the GTON brand which has been built over the last 2 years.

My proposal - a fresh start for GTON
My proposal is thus to modify the original proposal by adding a cash component to the exchange offer. On top of the 4.76 OGX tokens per GTON I propose to pay also 0.5 USDC/USDT per GTON. This would on the one hand add a strong incentive to swap for those that no longer believe in the future of the project, while at the same time increasing the cash value per GTON remaining.

As an alternative I would suggest resolving the DAO and payout the current cash value to every GTON holder. This is not an option I would vote for, but it is in the current status a fair option.

1 Like

Dear Rondas,

Huge respect for such detailed and comprehensive overview and structured ideas about tokenomics.

With all retrospectives I can see only 1 pivot where the narratives of crosschain relay utility token transformed to much bigger narratives of GTON Capital as infrastructure for wen3 services, dApps, DeFi and GameFi (aka Rollup, Stablecoin, DEX & NFT infrastructure).

The one I should agree with: we as a project failed several times with working token utility and its token economy. But those attempts for find and implement solutions weren’t pivots as far as I can understand.

GTON → OGXT is a solution for refreshing the token economy and implementation of its most important utility: relay token for simulated assets. (later once there is more organic liquidity - collateral for GCD). I hope “bull szn” will start again and OGX will be our Original GTON Started with more utility functions for OGXT.

First of all we have to figure out how much live addresses we have holding GTON. There are many accounts without single onchain tx (on any chain) since the project launched. We have to qualify how many active accounts we have before any estimations about supply “to be dumped”. Once it’s done (in mid June) there will be more data for designing proper tokenomics strategies.

I think that we have different POV here. The most terrible issue for web3 projects is lack of real users (not tokenholders or speculators). Most of web3 projects have no PMF at all. We have a strong position what the focus must be on the products and user engagement. Loyal users are source of community and community is able to co-create value with all those web3 tokenization features and accelerate the capitalization of projects and initiatives. Same for VCs, we wanna raise funds to the scale of the userbase and their engagement. This is healthy, a bit boring, but obvious approach.

I can see this as buyback approach. It’s actually good point to consider that after the swap is done (referencing to the uncertainty of a number of active holders atm).

There is many things to say from the core team, and the best time to make it structured is the next monthly AMA session.

Alex P

Hi all,

i must admit, i do agree with @rondras. The situation looks really bad. The project seems to pivot from one direction to the other, mostly in directions in which original investors did not sign up for.

That being said, i think a cash component for the swap, together with some serious liquidity for DEXes for the new token, seems to be appropriate. DAO could decide about the amount for both the cash component and the amount of liquidity.


I respectfully disagree with the statement that suggests the strategic decisions were made without the consent of the token holders. I think, It’s important to note that all strategic decisions were approved through voting by the token holders, who were primarily the initial project backers. Therefore, it can be argued that the majority of the token holders who participated in the voting process had a direct influence on the strategic decisions made.

I can confirm that the statement is accurate in that the new token will indeed have new governance features that allow holders to participate in the decision-making process. However, it is important to note that these new operational procedures will not come into effect until after the completion of the token swap, which is set to take place in June-23 (started in 15 April 2023). This decision was made for the reasons previously outlined in this forum, and it’s imperative that all relevant parties abide by the established timeline to ensure the smooth and efficient execution of the token swap process.

You are taking a very easy perspective here. Yes, token holders have voted in favor, but without any alternative.

As towards the swap: why not have a vote before the swap about a potential cash component?

Thank you very much for your answers, Alex.
At this point, however, I disagree. I do not think that it is an option to wait after the swap. Without an incentive, people will in my view not swap. Actually, you can even do it now. 50 Cents / GTON (very small range, I am not sure if a range that is one price is possible) single sided liquidity on Uni V3 and you will see who dumps and who not. The ones who stay are most likely the loyal users you would want or inactive accounts. Announce that you will only keep it there for a limited time. Afterwards a lot of questions are answered.

1 Like

I agree - lets vote on this.

I would like to emphasize that the term “cash component” appears to have a singular meaning in the context provided, namely, that certain investors wish to liquidate their gton positions. If this is indeed the case, the project team is always open to discussing such opportunities through direct communication channels, such as call or chat with each particular person who expresses such desire. Specifically for these types of inquiries, we have established a support ticket system in Discord (LINK). So far, I can’t see an urgency for the project team to initiate any campaign for this purpose before the token swap procedure is completed. Hope that position is clear. However, we are able to challenge those arguments and discuss it in our upcoming AMA session (1st April).

It is worth noting that the core team is primarily focused on product development and user engagement, and they will not be distracted by tokenswap operations until the date that was announced a few weeks ago during the last AMA.

P.S.: I would like to stress the importance of the monthly AMA sessions, as they provide a valuable opportunity to raise and address any questions or concerns publicly and receive written summaries of the discussions.

This is indeed not my intention - at least not generally speaking.
Of course some holders are disappointed and see no way out with the current level of liquidity on DEXes. I would lie if I said that I am a happy investor. But the idea is mainly to make sure that there is quick and efficent way to allow those who do not longer believe in the future of GTON to get out at a relatively fair amount. And also to convince those that are struggling with the swap to OGX to actually swap.

1 Like