Ticker Change & Token Split: What to do?

Governance
1

On October 30th, 2025, we launched a governance proposal outlining the next steps for the OM coin after ERC20 OM has been deprecated on January 15th, 2026. Please find the proposal summary below:

—–

Proposal Summary:

In preparation for OM coming home to its native chain, we intend to further consolidate our ecosystem around our brand and to streamline our tokenomics in a way that is primed for global expansion. We believe MANTRA is our strongest brand, and we want to double down on this strength. As such, we believe the following proposal lays the best foundation for the first steps after the deprecation of ERC20 OM.

The steps we propose are the following:

  1. Change the ticker from $OM to $MANTRA

  2. Implement a 1:4 token split, which proportionally redenominates the hard capped max supply from 2.5B to 10B.

READ ENTIRE PROPOSAL

—–

What’s Next?

The steps outlined in (1) and (2) above will require some technical considerations that our team is evaluating. We will continue to post information in this thread, as the proposal’s execution develops further. We also invite all community members that may have questions or concerns about their specific situation to use this forum for knowledge sharing and active engagement with the MANTRA team.

That being said, the following is a first list provided by our team that guides OM holders on what to do prior to the Upgrade. This list is not exhaustive and we will keep adding to it as we progress on the implementation.

Where is my OM? What do i have to do for the Upgrade?
Holding in my MANTRA Address No action required
Staked on MANTRA Chain No action required
Holding on CEX (with MANTRA Chain integrated) No action required
Provided Liquidity on MANTRA Swap Unwind your position
Provided OM to Fluxtra for ftOM Unwind your position
Holding on Osmosis Address (IBC) Use IBC to bring OM back to MANTRA Chain
Provided Liquidity on Osmosis (IBC) Unwind position and bring OM back to MANTRA Chain using IBC
Holding on Stargaze (IBC) Use IBC to bring OM back to MANTRA Chain
ERC20 OM on Ethereum Migrate to MANTRA Chain by Jan 15th
ERC20 OM on Polygon Bridge back to Ethereum and migrate to MANTRA Chain by Jan 15th
ERC20 OM on BSC Bridge back to Ethereum and migrate to MANTRA Chain by Jan 15th
ERC20 OM on Base Bridge back to Ethereum and migrate to MANTRA Chain by Jan 15th

Feel free to post your questions below - our team will work through your cases and provide help in a timely manner.

We are working around the clock to make this chain upgrade as smooth as possible for all ecosystem participants - and this includes you as well!

5 Likes
2

Hi :waving_hand:

When the new MANTRA token goes live, will the chart history of OM (which currently shows a 90%+ drop) remain the same, or will it start fresh as a new listing on CoinMarketCap and exchanges?

Since the price already dropped more than 90% from previous highs, I hope this new structure helps bring long-term value — not just a cosmetic change.

Thanks for the transparency and great work — really looking forward to what’s next for MANTRA :rocket:

1 Like
3

This is outright dilution.

If you only split already-issued tokens and keep the hard cap fixed, that is not dilution—but this structure bundles issued and unissued tokens together to increase the total supply.

In stock-market terms, it’s the equivalent of splitting 1B issued shares into 4B and at the same time increasing the authorized share count to 10B. Presenting unissued tokens as if they already exist in order to expand supply is a deliberate deception; no regulated stock market allows a split to be combined with a hidden issuance like this.

If a company treated unissued shares as real and increased the share count in that way, the market response would be immediate price decline. This borders on criminal behavior. Claiming “crypto is different from stocks” doesn’t justify treating the hard cap as a simple arithmetic trick—this is a real, value-diluting action that harms existing holders.

1 Like
4

Exciting update! Thanks for the clear roadmap, looking forward to the smooth transition to $MANTRA and continued ecosystem growth! :rocket:

4 Likes
5

‘that is not dilution’
‘this is value dilution’
……

you are not understanding or just trolling

simple explanation here: https://x.com/MANTRA_Intern/status/1981438314809897032

2 Likes
6

Tell me you don’t know how Proof of Stake blockchains work without telling me…

2 Likes
7

should be a fresh chart :saluting_face:

8

Proof of Stake doesn’t magically change arithmetic.

Supply mechanics and validator rewards don’t exempt a project from basic token economics.

You can’t hide inflation or supply expansion behind “PoS” buzzwords — unless you’re betting on people not reading the whitepaper.:rofl::rofl:

9

This tweet keeps shouting “NO DILUTION”, yet it literally admits that “dilution is structurally built into its inflationary model.”

Funny how you say NO DILUTION right next to “it’s inflationary atm.”

You just described dilution — with extra steps.

10

Charts can be redrawn, but fundamentals don’t change.

Supply is still expanding.

Anyway, it’s been amusing to watch this kind of creative logic — reality will speak for itself soon enough.:wink:

1 Like
11

Jin, this is a textbook example of a technically articulate but emotionally charged FUD comment. Let me break it down, and individually destroy your FUD narratives:

  1. Claim “This is outright dilution.” - Misleading. A redenomination (token split) is not dilution if each holder’s proportional ownership remains the same. Dilution only occurs if new supply beyond the existing total cap is minted or allocated to new entities without corresponding value.
  2. Point “If you only split already-issued tokens and keep the hard cap fixed, that is not dilution.” - Correct statement—but the proposal does exactly that: it maintains proportional ownership. The confusion arises from the difference between numerical redenomination and economic expansion.
  3. Point “Equivalent of splitting 1B shares into 4B and increasing the authorized share count to 10B.” - Misapplied analogy. In crypto, max supply ≠ circulating supply. Increasing the denomination of the hard cap doesn’t change value—it just changes units of measure (like switching from dollars to cents).
  4. Accusation “Deliberate deception… criminal behavior.” - Pure rhetoric. There’s no hidden issuance; all circulating supply scales equally. Emotional accusations often aim to discredit governance legitimacy rather than discuss mechanics.
  5. Point “Presenting unissued tokens as if they already exist… expands supply.” - The proposal doesn’t make unissued tokens “exist.” It simply restates all quantities (circulating and uncirculated) in 1:4 denomination. Every value—supply, allocation, emissions—is multiplied by 4, maintaining all proportions.
  6. Point “Price will decline.” - The market may react, but redenominations are typically neutral in market-cap terms. Example: 1 token @ $4 → 4 tokens @ $1. No net value lost.

I hope that I was able to clear up your confusion.

12

True, Proof of Stake doesn’t change arithmetic. Luckily, neither does this proposal.

The redenomination doesn’t create new value, new emissions, or new inflation. it simply restates the existing numbers in a 1:4 ratio. Every holder, validator, and pool still owns the same percentage of the network.

So yes, math still works — and it’s exactly why this isn’t inflation, just multiplication.

1 Like
13

You’re mixing up inflationary rewards with dilution from new issuance.

Inflation in PoS refers to validator rewards — a predictable, transparent mechanism that sustains network security. Dilution, on the other hand, means changing proportional ownership, which this split doesn’t do.

So yes, it’s inflationary by design (like every PoS chain), but no — it’s not dilution. That’s why they teach those as two separate chapters in Tokenomics 101. :wink:

1 Like
14

You’re right, fundamentals don’t change. That’s exactly why this redenomination doesn’t either.

Supply denomination is expanding, not supply ownership. Everyone still holds the same slice of the pie. We just sliced it into smaller pieces.

And as for “reality speaking for itself,” it usually does — especially when the math checks out louder than the FUD. :wink:

15

You’re deliberately mixing definitions to blur the line between a redenomination and an expansion of total supply.

Yes, a pure redenomination doesn’t cause dilution — if and only if the total cap remains fixed and all quantities are proportionally adjusted within the same limit.

But that’s not what’s happening here.

The proposal doesn’t just split already-issued tokens. It also multiplies the unissued supply and resets the hard cap upward — effectively giving the foundation and team four times more tokens to issue in the future. That is economic dilution, whether or not you want to hide it behind mathematical semantics.

In traditional finance, that’s equivalent to a company announcing a 1:4 stock split and simultaneously increasing its authorized share count by 4×.

No regulated market would ever allow such a move to be called “neutral.” It’s deceptive because it changes the future emission potential — the real driver of inflation and sell pressure.

Calling this “just a redenomination” is like saying printing four times more money doesn’t matter because everyone’s wallets are multiplied equally. It ignores the fundamental issue: supply expansion, not “unit conversion.”

So yes — the math checks out, but the economics don’t.

Markets don’t price based on arithmetic; they price based on trust, scarcity, and expectation.

And by quietly increasing the hard cap, you’ve just eroded all three.

16

You keep repeating that “this is just multiplication, not inflation.”

That line alone shows how disconnected your reasoning is from basic economics.

Multiplication doesn’t happen in a vacuum — when you multiply both the circulating and unissued supply by four, you don’t just change the numbers; you change the entire emission framework, the perception of scarcity, and the market’s trust in the token’s value. That is economic inflation, whether or not you want to call it “arithmetic.”

You argue that “no new value is created.” True — and that’s exactly the problem.

If total supply quadruples while no value or demand is created, then the real value per unit naturally declines. You can call it redenomination, denomination, or mathematical restatement all you want — but the market calls it dilution.

Proof of Stake doesn’t magically erase tokenomics, as I said before.

Validator rewards and emissions are not divine exemptions from supply mechanics.

PoS inflation is still inflation. It’s simply a predictable mechanism of issuance, not a justification for expanding the hard cap or reframing unissued tokens as “just numbers.”

When you say, “Everyone still owns the same percentage of the network,”

you’re describing a static snapshot — a moment frozen in time.

But tokenomics isn’t static. It’s dynamic and forward-looking.

When the protocol grants itself four times more future issuance, that’s not neutrality. That’s a structural redefinition of supply that changes everything from emission rate to staking yield and sell pressure.

You seem to treat “redenomination” as a purely cosmetic event.

But in markets — especially those driven by perception, liquidity, and expectation — cosmetics can have very real effects.

By changing the supply figure, you are not simply “restating” reality; you’re reshaping it.

More tokens in circulation (or even the potential for more tokens) means more sell pressure, less scarcity, and therefore lower confidence.

So, yes, math works — but economics works harder.

Markets don’t price arithmetic; they price trust and scarcity.

When you quietly expand the hard cap under the guise of a redenomination, you don’t multiply the ecosystem — you multiply the doubt.

In summary:

You can dress it up in tokenomics jargon all you like — “denomination,” “no new value,” “same percentage of the network.”

But the end result is the same:

expanded supply, diluted value, and eroded trust.

And if you still believe this is “not inflation,” then you’re not doing math —

you’re doing marketing.

17

You’re not correcting me — you’re just narrowing definitions until they stop applying.

Yes, inflationary rewards and dilution are different mechanisms, but their economic impact is identical: both reduce the real value of each unit held over time.

Calling it “inflation by design” doesn’t make it harmless.

Inflation in PoS still comes from new issuance, which is literally what dilution means in economic terms — expanding supply relative to existing value.

Whether that expansion is predictable or random doesn’t change its effect.

Predictable inflation is still inflation.

It just means holders can expect to be diluted.

When you say “ownership percentages stay the same,” you’re describing a frozen moment in time, ignoring what happens as new tokens enter circulation.

If the total cap and future issuance potential increase, then holders’ long-term share of total value inevitably declines.

That’s not confusion — that’s tokenomics reality.

And invoking “Tokenomics 101” doesn’t make your logic sound smarter.

It just proves you’re relying on definitions instead of fundamentals.

Markets don’t trade on vocabulary; they trade on expectations and scarcity.

When the model structurally guarantees continuous issuance, it doesn’t matter whether you call it inflation, emission, or staking reward — the result is the same: real dilution of value.

You keep repeating the same talking points, and honestly, there’s nothing new here anymore.

I’m tired of saying the same things over and over, too.

If you choose to see only what fits your narrative and keep shrinking the facts to deceive people, time itself will prove you wrong.

The market always does.

This proposal will pass anyway — the foundation controls the outcome, as everyone knows.

But tell me, can something so centrally dictated, so self-serving, still be called a cryptocurrency?

History tends to be unkind to those who mistake control for innovation.

18

When someone loses the argument but wins the word count.

20

You didn’t lose the debate — you just ran out of excuses.

If logic hurt your pride, I’ll apologize… next time I use smaller words.

Anyway, I’m done talking — take care, champ​:+1:t2::wink:

21

You misunderstood, yet again. Since I have already refuted every one of your points, I just refuse to waste my time to do it again, since you obviously have no agenda but to FUD unintelligently. So yes, you win the word war. I’ll take the debate win.

2 Likes