Proposal: Rebranding Completion and Tokenomics Enhancement


In recent years, we have witnessed several successful stock splits, such as Google’s 2:1 split in 2014, Apple’s 4:1 split, and Tesla’s 5:1 split in 2020. In the crypto domain, we have observed Merit Circle DAO’s impressive pivot and token split from MC to BEAM at a ratio of 1:100. Ribbon Finance also underwent a soft pivot into derivatives and rebranded under a unified umbrella with the AEVO launch, along with its 1:1 token conversion plan. Maker DAO’s plan to implement a token share split, converting MKR into NGT at a ratio of 1:24000 as part of their Endgame roadmap, demonstrates how a strategic stock/token split effort can generate excitement and realignment as well as readjust unit and anchoring bias based on 52-week highs and lows.


1- I propose MUX completes its comprehensive rebranding journey from MCDEX to MUX with a bang by discontinuing the use of the current MCB ticker and announcing the introduction of a brand new token called MUX. This strategic rebranding serves multiple purposes:

  • Brand Alignment: A fresh start with a new token symbol and chart will allow MUX to better align its brand identity with its long-term vision and goals.
  • Community Engagement: The announcement of a rebranding initiative can generate excitement and rejuvenate the community’s interest in the project, attracting new participants and investors.
  • Clarity: A new token name can provide clarity and differentiate MUX from any previous associations or misconceptions tied to the MCB ticker.
  • Marketing Opportunities: A rebranding effort offers the opportunity to create new marketing campaigns and initiatives, enhancing the platform’s visibility and reach.

2- Wind down veTokenomics and enable $MCB and $veMUX holders to migrate to $MUX, the new protocol token.

Governance & Tokenomics

To further enhance MUX’s appeal and usability, I suggest a shift in the protocol’s governance and tokenomics model. Specifically, I recommend abandoning the current vote-escrowed tokenomics system and transitioning towards a more liquid and accessible $MUX token.

  1. Increased Liquidity: By removing the vote-escrowed mechanism, MUX tokens will become more liquid and readily tradable on various CEX and DEX’s. This will make it easier for users to buy, sell, and stake MUX tokens, increasing overall liquidity and trading volume and fees generated by LPs.
  2. Accessibility: A more accessible tokenomics model will attract a broader range of users and investors, democratizing participation in the governance and decision-making processes of the MUX platform.
  3. Incentivized Participation: Instead of locking tokens in vote-escrow contracts, incentivize users to participate actively in the governance process through other stacking mechanisms that the core contributors and stakerholders deem fit.

Announcing this with a 4-5% airdrop distribution based on a revamped loyalty and MLM referral program appropriating Blast or Manta models for a derivatives platform would make MUX a net beneficiary of the current crypto meta.


The proposed finalisation of the rebranding of MUX with a token split, along with a shift in governance and tokenomics, aligns with successful strategies employed by other projects in the crypto and financial sectors. This initiative aims to invigorate the MUX platform, attract a broader audience, and enhance its long-term sustainability. As a veMUX holder, I strongly believe that MUX is trading far below its fair value so the potential benefits far outweigh the 5% dilution.


I agree that veTokenomic is not optimised for MUX. Specially since this kind of tokenomic fits well for protocol where you can boost pools, liquidity & rewards via a Gauge voting system such as Curve or PancakeSwap

Getting a liquid wrapper might be a risky and hard task to do/ monitor. We just have to look at Plutus DAO downfall to see it.

A complete tokenomic change could be a better option indeed.

That being said in my humble opinion, tokenomic should not be a high priority for core team right now. I think they should focus on onboarding more traders (smoother UI & UX, new trading set up, etc…)



I am in favor of all the points in the proposal.

My only concern is the amount of effort needed to complete them all. What is the current capacity? If the current team is fully focused on shipping the new trading setup and integrating new protocols, how can we fit these proposals? Should the team be expanded, or is it possible to expand the team with the current financial situation?

We currently face time constraints as new protocols with enhanced user experience and performance have already been shipped and are experiencing increased adoption so we cannot halt the current developments.


Agree on both concerns that MUX needs to stay competitive as newer generations of clob/hybrid perp platforms are getting closer to the CEX experience with email/social logins (in-house or via Privy), MPC/AA wallets enabling gasless trades, sub 200ms execution speeds via fast finality and throughput consensus infra.

Having said that - painting this as a “either, or” would be a false binary and disservice to what MUX contributors have in store for the upcoming major upgrade. I think this proposal would synergise well with that major upgrade as technical improvements do not market themselves and marketing based on technical improvements is not a plan.

  • GMX v2 came with a fee split to fuel development & growth, and updated tokenomics
  • dYdX v4 came with a dedicated app chain, revenue share via staking
  • Synthethix v3 has inflation reduction to 0%, buy and burn via Infinex revenue on Base, new integrators and collateral types

We need a similar major and well-crafted and communicated update. My two cents.


Hey Cenk, thank you for putting up the proposal!

Changing tokenomics and rebranding is a huge shift for MUX. Personally, I think it’s about how and when. Regarding how - what happened to the current ve holders since we are committed to a 4-year lock already and such a shift might cause their backlash; how much dev resources need to be committed etc. Regarding when - currently we are in full swing to push forward with the new trading setup, which we believe gains an edge in current perp competitions. And when will be a good time to move also worth considering.

Love to hear more from the community side!


Thanks for the input Jean.

Just to expand on the how part: if we were to use Ribbon restructuring as a blueprint (keep in mind they had a similar vote-escrowed tokenomics modified to 2 year max lock) - this was what was proposed and executed:

Ribbonomics wind-down
  1. set $RBN emissions to 0 across all vaults
  2. allow veRBN lockers to unlock 100% without any penalty
  3. stop vault revenue-sharing with veRBN lockers

veRBN lockers agreed to forego 50% of the revenue-share in exchange to be 100% liquid and that enabled them to have the resources to expand team to soft-pivot to a CLOB perp. I predict the current value accrual and staking mechanism to be closer to current Vertex and dYdX implementations, but we’ll see.

I will also add this: either full or partial transfer of MCB from weak and low influence/NPS holders to a fresh cohort would be a net gain, and I don’t think any veMUX locker oppose being 100% liquid and retaining the option to restake in a new mechanism.

I have full confidence in the team for the when part. This proposal was aimed at potential options that could reignite interest in the protocol.


I 100% agree with a token rebrand, and this would be an opportunity to address and improve some of the proven tokenomics flaws, and also bring some fresh attention to the token.

I disagree that tokenomics should not be a priority. Heard this time & time again and have seen promising projects crash & burn because they ignored their own token. As long as we are building in crypto, tokenomics should be a TOP priority.
Also the time to be heads down & build was during the bear market, and this approach is bad during the bull. There is no better time to revamp the tokenomics than at the beginning of a bull market.

Fully agree.

Positive price action results in interest, which results in more usage, which results in better performance, which results in positive price action. Especially strong in a bull market. Let the market do the marketing for you.

With a clear valuation gap relative to competitors and the ve mechanism likely to be the root cause, it seems like a no-brainer to get rid of it asap.

On another note, we don’t need ve. ve is for ponzi’s :slight_smile:


Going to add one more pragmatic argument for the wind-down of ve-tokenomics:

Mux Protocol:
30d Fees Annualised: $32.29m
FDV: $42.68m
P/F (Price to Fully Diluted Value): 1.32x

Gains Network:
30d Fees Annualised: $29.53m
FDV: $224.2m
P/F: 7.59x

If MUX had the same P/F ratio as Gains, the price of MCB would be $51 USD.

866,820 MCB is to be emitted until we reach max supply - which translates to a value of $7.6m as inflationary rewards to veMUX and MUXLP holders at today’s prices.

If we sunset ve and reach a similar P/F to Gains, this translates to a value of $44.20m as inflationary rewards to veMUX and MUXLP holders at future equilibrium.

By maintaining status quo and citing whatever argument in defence of it - the protocol is theoretically bleeding $36.6m until max supply, roughly $42 USD per MCB emitted.

Hiring 2 additional engineers for a full year and performing 1-2 audits would cost less than $1M.

So the cost maintaining status quo is a net negative in the vicinity of $25-30M range.

Happy to be convinced otherwise.


I agree with Cenk.

When it comes to the long term sustainability of the protocol, traders & LPs are more important than token holders. This is why they are the top priority and they should always be.

Token holders are not ignored as they fully benefit from all the value accrued by the protocol check the docs for more details

Moreover, team showed that they care about token holders as you can see with the last boosts in veMUX token-holder incentives

The protocol should always keeps improving, during bears & bull markets. Being in a bull is not a reason for not improving, otherwise we will lose valuable users

A new trading set up is around the corner, the value it generates will be distributed token holders. Check the proposal for more details

It’s actually exactly the token holders that are ignored, the token lockers are the ones benefiting from incentives so my argument still stands. The tokens held(but not locked) would benefit from the MCB accruing value, which would further attract attention to the project etc.

Again, it’s the token lockers they cared about, if I hold the token in my wallet without locking, I get 0% APR

I totally agree, I’m not against further building & improving, I’m against the heads down attitude which doesn’t benefit anyone (token holders or project) in a bull market. In a bear market it is the right strategy because team needs to totally ignore price in order to focus on building, but in a bull you need to attract as much attention as you can on the project, as this brings with it users & liquidity, and there is no better marketing tool in crypto than price appreciation. I’m not saying pump the token of course, but optimize the tokenomics so at least some value accrues to token