MTA Circulation 3.422.051 / TOTAL 100.000.000

Hello. First of all, I am happy to be in your community.

There is a 32-fold difference between the circulating and the total. Why was 3,422,051 / 100,000,000 launched on the market? Wouldn’t this cause suspicion and concern in the eyes of the investor (MTA)? I wonder why you are doing this.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why such high quality projects are not available on exchanges such as binance, okex and coinbase. Or are there listing studies on major stock exchanges?

I think the difference between the amount of tokens in circulation and the total amount does not give confidence to the investor. Could you please share with us the reason for this?


Thank you for sharing this, we are glad to have you.

Firstly, I note here that I am speaking in a personal capacity. My views do not represent the views of the mStable team, or others who work with us.

I think your point is worth clarifying and discussing. We have thought deeply about how MTA tokens should be emitted over the life of our project, and we deliberately chose to emit a small percentage of the total supply in the beginning. Everything we have done in relation to the token has the goal of a wide and fair distribution as top priority, since Meta is a governance token which will soon be driving how the system is governed. The reasoning as I see it is twofold:

  1. Our initial auction was not intended to be a token sale with a large amount of MTA being released. We were clear about this in our public communications, with this article in particular, where we state “These MTA tokens are not an investment opportunity”, referring to the 2.6m MTA initially to be released.

    The next valid question then comes, if this wasn’t intended to be a sale, why did the team do this? We released MTA to the public in this way because it is essential for the MTA token to have an established price and liquid markets in order for our rewards programs (EARN) and our Recollateralisation mechanisms to function correctly. Without a price for MTA, these 2 key components of our system do not work.

    It’s worth noting that we were initially going to just list on Balancer, but delayed and restructured the entire token release because we felt listing it on a liquidity pool would result in sub optimal consequences such as front running that we felt stood in the way of a fair distribution of Meta.

  2. We have chosen to gradually emit the majority of MTA to the public, via rewards, staking, and other yet to be released initiatives over the next 5+ years. That means we start small, and grow over the long term. I personally believe that gradual emission over a long time frame gives us better assurances over a fair distribution of tokens amongst a broader community. Our stated intention was to “sustainably grow our community of MTA Governors”, and in my opinion a gradual emission will achieve this goal better than selling large amounts of the token early. Had we sold the majority of MTA in July’s public auction, supply would almost certainly be centralised in the hands of a few select whales and investors who were willing to use their balance sheets to buy up large amounts of the allocation at the time.

    We want people 2, 3, or even 5 years from now, who discover our project, to feel like they can legitimately own a piece of mStable and participate in governing the platform. We want them to earn MTA by contributing to the platform instead of just buying it, and so if we released most of our supply this year, I feel that these future users of our platform would not get that opportunity. A community of mStable governors, built upon reasonable debate and mutual respect is my goal, and all my decisions are motivated with this in mind.

Now of course, there is a criticism that our investors and others who hold large token allocations have “unfairly” benefitted from this. But if I may speak honestly, had we not had the investment and support from these entities at the time, mStable as a project would not exist today (and maybe most of DeFi), and we would not be having this discussion. We would not have been able to pay for salaries and code audits. These investors are people who contributed to the project when it was an unknown brand, without a community, and a yet to be proven idea and product. We chose to accept their money and give them token allocations that at the time were fair.

We are not responsible and do not exercise any control over what our investors do with their tokens once they receive them on the vesting schedules we agreed to. The “VC dump coin” meme in my opinion is a sour-grapes mentality toward the harsh realities of capital formation in a hyper competitive environment. And it is counterproductive to us delivering great product and truly disruptive technology.

Hopefully this drawn out response can start a discussion :slight_smile: looking forward to hearing what others think of this.


I believe that over the long haul, people will see the value of what the team is building.

Having a slower emissions schedule will also see incentivise the right kind of long term holders who can add value to the project in various ways.

1 Like