joy

$GENE @GenomesDAO #DeSci 🧬🧬 This will be a deeper dive into $GENE and why I think it can pull up to 300x from here Current MC at the time of writing: $1.5million 🧵🧵

Ideally, this is what I'd like to see the $VRA team do in regard to their tokenomics: ✅Move the 90B POV marker tokens to a different contract ✅Burn 10B WarChest I see a lot of posts saying that the WarChest is 100% going to be burned but I don't know how likely it is that they will just burn the WarChest even though it is no longer needed. I hope that even if it isn't burned, they're smart about giving these tokens a different use. Participate in the @verasitytech Tokenomics Community Consultation here if you want your voice to be heard about what you think should be done with the current tokenomics: docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F… You have until the end of Q3 (end of this month) before the team closes submissions. All responses will be read and remain anonymous. @block_writer has said, in regards to the consultation, and I quote "We are very serious, that at the end of this consultation, that we're going to take community feedback into account and we're going to act on that." They have acknowledged that the WarChest IS problematic and that they do have a plan for it. They are also going to seriously explore the possibility of differentiating and moving the marker tokens elsewhere so that they aren't associated with the circulating supply of $VRA. Being transparent with tokenomics is very important for the longevity of a project. Imagine a new investor starts to do research on $VRA and sees that there are 90B tokens that could possibly be used or even dumped on the market. This will only turn investors away. I think $VRA is a great project with huge potential but their tokenomics is something they need to address AND they are addressing it at the end of this month. I'm eagerly waiting to see what the team decides to do.