Burn all Community Treasury Funds

Everyone should be aware you dont create money with PNG airdrop, its inflation and money lost if you dont get the airdrop, someone else getting it(devs, animals or whatever it is…)
Devs can get a promotion, not a juicy drop. Or else it is a money grab with no promise or motivation. If PNG hits market cap 1 B for example give devs 100 K dollars…
Marketing would be done by large capital holders in community anyway, no need to spend money on that. If the project has value it will atract people, so add more pools, make the ui better and earn more…
Airdrop should be spended on community if its gonna be spended not on any 3rd party.


Good day Sir!
I am not an old avax follower , nevertheless i bought png for my own money at 6$ and hold it for long time! Want to share my opinion and hope that youll take it into consideration! Will divide my thoughts to points for being more appropriate.

1 - We have 2,076,770 tokens in circulation this point and i don’t understand HOW YOU CAN consider fair! and justified to aim airdrop near 20 mln tokens to those who even hadn’t spent their own money for buying png… so theoretically if people claim their airdrops , the circulation would be 22mln tokens … so the price of png would decrease 10 times!!! NOW PLEASE PUT YOURSELF TO MY PLACE AND TO ALL OTHER PEOPLES PLACE WHO PAID 5-6$ for single png. … and after airdrop they see their single png becoming 0.5-0.6$ ? IS THAT FAIR APPROACH ??? WHAT DOES MEAN TO AIRDROP 10 times more tokens then current circulating supply!!! YOU COULD MAKE MAXIMUM 10% airdrop of tokens!!! not 1000%!!! of circulation supply! so 200.000tokens maximum not 20mln!!! This is just disgusting approach and behavior to those who spend their salary and earned money to participate in project! Believe me! they do not wish to see everyone getting airdrops and selling it immediately by dropping the price instantly ! like we see it now! and would continue seeing if you don’t initiate any action! preventing it!

2 - I want to tell you that i was a holder of 1inch token , whos developers made several airdrops to uniswap users … and you know what happened ? you think it attracted anyone to use 1inch? NO! look at the price of 1inch lol, it dumped hard after that FCKN aridrop , all the community was frustrated and disappointed in project! Because everyone who got free money ran to sell that , and the most funny shit was that, they entered to telegram group of 1inch, and i had read several messages in this veriety , like - lol thanks to fucken 1inch to airdropping me this shitty coin which i sold in a second and bought xxx(some other name) coin - NOW I WANNA ASK YOU, CAN YOU PUT YOURSELF TO A PLACE OF PERSON WHO SPENT HIS OWN MONEY TO BUY 1INCH AND HOLD IT IN PUMPS AND DUMPS … how would he feel in your opinion? But the funnies think is that 1inch token dumped because of only 10-15% airdrop! that airdrop was 10-15% of their circulating token supply!!! and that dumped the price , and brought ,occured frustration of the community! DONT BE LIKE DEVS OF FCKN 1inch pLEASE!

THat being said my suggestions are the following `

A - Cancel that whole airdrop activity right this moment! No need to wait till March 9 or longer for more dump and more frustration!

B - Burn 95% of tokens not airdropped yet immediately so if there are for an instance - 18 or 19mln … keep 0.9 or 0.95mln tokens (though that is already too much… maybe it is better to burn 98%) , for your reserve hence MARKETING!!! PURPOSES (attract youtubers twitter guys etc etc) AND DEVELOPMENT (DAMN USE THAT FCKN MONEY TO PAY PROGRAMMERS TO MAKE ALL YOUR GOALS CONNECTED TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT 10 times FASTER with 10 times more hands coding)! THAT WOULD SPREAD THE NEWS OF THE PROJECT MUCHHHH more INTENSE way!!!

C - Respect those who buy and hold the token not get fckn airdrop and sell initiating dump and frustration of community! Go to your telegram read what people write. Are they happy or excited with the airdrop …NO!


this is what i have written ! if you are clever youll read this and if you agree youll go and like it! GO REGISTER IN FORUM AND LIKE MY ANSWER! YOU CAN ALSO WRITE UNDER MY ANSWER , like - I AGREE TO THIS PERSON or GEVORG!! dAMN I WANT A SUCCESS OF THIS PROJECT NOT TO SEE HOW IT DIES!!! FUCK!


I agree with this. I’d vote to not burn the funds. Having funds gives governance much more opportunity, in turn enticing more value to making governance decisions, and owning the token.


Agree entirely with this. I just would want it ensure this doesn’t become another opportunity for airdrops/dumps. But that’s up to governance to decide- burning prevents governance from making the decision. A treasure chest to build and grow the platform is a huge incentive and opportunity to grow, as you said.

1 Like

I think, this is not a good idea.
As the first investors of the project, we have already lost a lot of money. With today’s dumb, apx. half of my capital is lost. So I believe the biggest portion of the treasury should be used to support the first liquidity suppliers as a kind of loyalty incentive in order to compensate losses and support the loyal community members. If we don’t make the community members happy and create good stories, how can we convince the other people to join Pangolin.


No one says the Treasury should burn all their tokens. They should keep some for development etc. But putting half a billion tokens in circulation when there are only 2-3 million currently is a recipe for disaster. You don’t have to dilute current holders by 99 to encourage project development, that’s crazy. Burn 400 million, keep 100 million for development, something like that.

And good luck turning Uniswap users into loyal community members. They just come on the exchange, dump their PNG, and leave. Those are the last people you should be airdropping tokens to.


Hi everyone,

I have read all of your opinions and some of them influenced me. In fact, I was leaning towards burning them as we also chatted about this on telegram before. But, now I think there might be some good uses of that fund INCLUDING creating relative scarcity, the only advantage of burning the coins.

1)As many of you said: funding growth (development, marketing, community building, etc)
1.a.) Vertical growth: Pangolin can become a substantially bigger DEX
1.b.) Horizontal growth: Pangolin can potentially deploy non-exchange financial features like trading, lending, funding, etc.
1.c.) Apart from these product developments, we could potentially have dedicated marketing and business development efforts which are critical to reaching mass adoption.

  1. Increasing demand for PNG in the meantime: you could make an asset relatively scarcer either by decreasing the supply like burning or by increasing the demand.

2.a.) PNG staking option: There could be an exclusive option to stake PNG (not LP as PNG pairs) and earn interest. I believe there would be immense demand since no IL, provided that the interest rate for staking is competitive.
2.b.) Give higher reward to all PNG pools: This has been raised by other members frequently. Could be implemented together with the PNG staking option.

I genuinely think that putting those funds in the treasury and have a structured plan to spend them on growth projects could provide a huge upward potential to Pangolin which is a better and more sustainable way of creating relative scarcity.

Best regards,


I feel the tokens should be burned and the airdrop should not be extended. Early investors deserve to have their money protected. Adding those 20 million coins will hurt the early investors and some of the people that claim the airdrop could just dump to another coin. Do right by the community that believes in this project.

  • Mako
1 Like

What will benefit the community the most, is if the project is successful.

In my mind, what will make the project successful is:

  • Liquidity
  • Innovation
  • Building the community

For all of those we’ll need funds. We can’t expect the best talent in crypto to come across to Pangolin out of the goodness of their hearts. We have to create an environment that welcomes talent and being able to pay fair market rates.

If I’m a Sushi developer, why would I jump ship to Pangolin?

We have to create compelling reasons why we’re the next platform. Burning Community Treasury Funds sends a message we’re just a pump and dump roadhouse.


Although “burning” makes sense for L1 type tokens, I don’t think it makes sense to burn for PNG.
Also, if the tokens don’t get used, isn’t it effectively the same as burning anyways ?

Why can’t we use it as a marketing/adoption fund to incentivize people who can add to the adoption, understanding and general distribution of information relating to Pangolin ? Similar to grant programs we can use the funds to teach and incentivize network effcts.


Instant burn with no careful plan makes little sense to me. I prefer a controlled burn with fund allocated to treasury.

I think burning the treasury fund would be a terrible idea. The treasury is going to be a key resource over the coming years to deal with a huge range of issues that will come up:

  • Security and technology issues that need urgent attention or expert help.
  • Dealing with regulators and obtaining legal, audit and finance advice from professionals where this is required to ensure Pangolin can comply with all relevant laws and has regular audits to encourage market confidence.
  • Ensuring ongoing development and making sure Pangolin can access the best developers and stays competitive.
  • Treasury can also act as self-insurance in the event of a disaster.
  • It will help in later years if Pangolin needs to establish a Foundation, Trust or other legal framework to protect the DEX.
  • The treasury will help pay for marketing activities.

Please do not destroy the treasury. Manage it wisely, use it sensibly, provide sound governance for spending and it will become part of Pangolin’s success.


+1; This notion that increasing circulating supply suddenly leads to price drops is harmful for two reasons:

  1. Projects that focus on manipulating their token price more than their actual development will not fare well in the long run. We should be using these tokens to fund future development, which is good for the community and is also indirectly good for the token price (if that’s really what you care about).
  2. This is probably not true (and definitely not provably true). If you’re making the simple economic argument that increasing supply decreases price, then you also need to apply the economic principle that since the total supply is known upfront by all parties, in theory the difference between the circulating supply and total supply is already priced into the token price and should not be affected by the circulating supply increasing. Second, the price is simply a function of what people are willing to buy and sell PNG for. Your average joe does not factor in the supply when deciding what to trade for a PNG. They see that the price is X on an exchange and they usually make a decision based on whether or not to invest on the project’s future potential, not on some abstract notion of the circulating supply vs. total supply.

By this same logic, when BTC was trading for a few dollars a coin they should have held back the rest of the supply to protect the price. I hope people see the fallacies in this supply-based logic.


This would be a waste of PNG. We could be using them for dev funds to further improve the platform, insurance, issuing algorithmic stablecoins or literally anything else that isn’t just pumping the value of PNG by artificially reducing its marketcap.


Lets run a pangolin marketing campaign with it.

1 Like

Any proposal that says “all”, just stop, I think the fund is valuable and needs to be consciously split between many initiatives, I’d love to reward more the devs for contributing, being them an employee of AvaxLabs or an elected contributor to the project, but I also think that the value being hold on the Treasure is too big, 1mi USD per year can sustain a good team of 8-10 developers, that amount of developers would shoot Pangolin from the ground. I also love the idea of running marketing campaign, and even injecting back to the economy, we just need to be conscious on how this will be done, this can have severe implications on current PNG price and can even push some of our biggest holders out of the platform.


If anything, this PNG needs to be spent on anything that improves the value of PNG, as opposite to initiatives that drops the value of it, one way to distribute it and increase PNG price is to have a tasklist where members that are short on money can perform, in order to be rewarded with PNG, and those tasks needs to provide real value to the community, it’s a complex topic, but it could be something to explore


Agree 100% - instead of giving it away by teasing in UNI/SUSHI holders, make the project better. Or, increase the rewards for all liquidity providers to the project. Surely increased rewards will bring more people to Pangolin and reward those who have helped get it started.


burn 10% and punt for 6 months. We should be doing neither putting these units to work, nor destroying these units.

If avax plan is/was to walk us off the plank and force us to immediately start funding our own endeavors then we’ve already lost.

Let’s see what avax brings to the table in the next 6 months, and eliminate the possibility of over reacting with a commodity we can’t accurately value.

1 Like

This! We have a choice between being a community of PNG holders with 20m PNG that we can spend on improvements to the service, or a community of PNG holders with 0 PNG. If we move these funds into a treasury that every PNG holder has a voice in controlling, every current PNG holder becomes more wealthy. The PNG in the treasury will be potential energy for our community, the value of which will be amplified exponentially by the functionality and improvements we’ll be able to make to our DEX.

Please don’t burn the Pangolin Community Treasury!

1 Like