Cross Chain Proposal #2 – Mint or Bridge?

Dear fellow VERT holders – with the success of the first proposal, PolyVertex will be expanding to new frontiers in the coming future. Now that Arbitrum has been decided as chain of choice we have to decide how it will impact VERT on Polygon.

Thus, I present to you two choices: mint or bridge.

Option #1

Mint an entirely new token.

Why should we mint a new token?

1. It keeps the two chains separate and the price impacts on one chain does not affect the other.

2. It’s a fresh start, new liquidity, new market cap, new potential.

3. Allows flexibility and control of emissions.

4. If we’re to use the existing token and allow it be bridged, arbitragers can take advantage of new farmers on Arbitrum and apr’s in affect will suffer on the new chain.

In short, with an entirely new token we are essentially starting from scratch, however, we have the benefit and leverage of our trust and experience on the polygon chain.

Option #2

Bridge VERT over to Arbitrum.

Why should we bridge VERT?

1. All houses under one roof, what benefits one benefits the other. Dual burn mechanisms from vaults and other features on two chains for example; compounded deflationary affect.

2. Burn and mint equilibrium. We get to capitalize off the benefits of burning when tokens are bridged.

3. Greater control over the product and service of our ecosystem.

4. Branding can be confusing when minting an entirely new token, due to a possible different name, or even the same name. The advantage of combing the two ecosystems is familiarity and connection between both chains.

In short, by bridging we’re creating cohesiveness between the two chains, benefiting off dual burn mechanisms, have a greater control of branding and deflationary mechanisms.

Thank you for taking the time to vote, choose wisely!