Should TKey move to one single token?

As a long-time loyal and large investor in TreasureKey I want to propose the following:

TreasureKey needs to leave behind the concept of two tokens, Pirate and PirateP.

Most of us know what the reason was for TreasureKey to launch a second ICO, where PirateP was launched. The team wanted to have presence on the Polygon network, while its initial token, Pirate, is a BSC token. Secondly, the team needed additional funding for business development, and this was a good opportunity for them to raise those necessary funds for critical expansion (Certik Audit/Chainlink VRF) . The team originally proposed a token bridge which would be installed after a certain period that would make both coins equal, but as time progressed it found out that for security reasons it was a too big risk to build a secure bridge for swapping Pirate to PirateP and vice versa. The community eventually decided in a vote that the bridge concept would be abandoned for now, and also decided that both tokens would have an equal dividend split based on their respective total supplies. So that was the start of two separate tokens, on two separate chains but with one team, TreasureKey.

Idea behind the proposal TreasureKey is a profitable blockchain-casino with frequent dividend payouts to all Pirate(P) stakers. The dividend percentage is very high with an average around 50% since inception. The team is using 50% of the revenues for its own cost like employee compensation, Chainlink VRF costs, boosting LP APYs and so forth. With two chains, the team needs to at least sponsor 2 liquidity pools to attract enough liquidity providers for its pools. Maintaining two pools costs money, a lot of money that could be used to hire additional developers, go towards marketing and other key drivers that lead towards long term project success. From a team’s perspective this is a serious cost issue and with TKEY having a limited budget as an early startup this is dragging down the insane potential this project has. We, the holders of Pirate and PirateP have a much better chance of seeing increased payouts the team had planned at one point to allocate 80% of profits to holders once some of the overhead expenses are reduced and this would go a long way towards accomplishing that goal. Finally, from an auditor’s perspective the centralization issue of non-automatic payouts will be solved when TKEY operates on one chain. It means a decentralized dividend payouts system can be easily implemented.

For investors there is little to no benefit of having two tokens. By owning two tokens, it means you have to hold the Pirates on two chains, two separate wallets, while the price of both tokens is also fluctuating with high volatility. For an outside investor these two tokens look rather strange, and we see many in TG asking the difference between the two as price spread exists. Besides that, the most important issue is still the lack of liquidity. Slippage of both tokens is enormous and scares off new investors and is a major turn off for large investors looking to get involved. With increased liquidity it is a major positive for everyone involved in this project. Sellers will have the ability to exit their position if they choose to while new investors can enter into the project with both buyers and sellers both benefiting greatly from the increased price stability and liquidity.

Proposal: TreasureKey needs to leave behind the concept of two tokens, Pirate and PirateP and choose Pirate. Why the BSC side? Well, on the BSC side we certainly see more interest in the token. During the time that both tokens exist, we have seen mainly Pirate trading at a premium above PirateP token. The volume in Pirate token is also higher than PirateP. All chains have their disadvantages but we can safely conclude that BSC is much faster in executing trades on DEX’s. A main driver for many traders to avoid the Polygon network (still). Also a vast majority of revenues from the project have been generated on the PIRATE side as well.

This means that all PirateP tokens need to be swapped for new minted Pirate tokens on the BSC side. It means that all PirateP tokens will be burnt, and the Pirate token will be minted with 6 million extra tokens, to reach a total of 13.25 million Pirate tokens.

In terms of profit distribution, nothing changes. The team will still payout 50% of its revenues, but now only to stakers on the BSC side, in the dividend pool of Autoshark.

In terms of liquidity, a major change will happen. All liquidity will move to one pool on one chain, which in theory should decrease the slippage for traders and makes the Pirate token a lot more attractive for new investors.

In terms of costs, the team will save money on LPs, promotions and time maintaining two chains.

What doesn’t change are the on-ramps on both chains. Players can still bet with Matic, buy chest keys with Matic or use on-ramp coins to bet as well on the Poly-side. The games will continue running on both chains, and I can imagine the team will explore even more chains to offer TKey casino games.

As this proposal impacts the BSC-side of TKEY (minting of an extra 6 million Pirate tokens) only the Pirate token holders on the BSC-side can cast their vote.

To conclude, I would start a vote where participant can choose for two options:

1: TKEY needs to abandon the concept of two coins, and will (for one time only) swap all PirateP coins for new minted Pirate tokens on the BSC, remaining a total of still 13.25 million tokens. 2: TKEY will continue with two separate coins, Pirate and PirateP