@Hollowgrahm always with the facts. I like the idea of giving

redeem options to holders. Everyone's situation and goals are different and it would likely appeal to a wider audience.

12:1 no lock, 8:1 2yr lock, 4:1 4yr lock no govt cap, 3:1 4yr lock 3veFXS max power (-25% veFXS)

Of course, I'm just spitballing here.

At the end of the day, as stated by a few here, personally, I'm willing to sacrifice some immediate "pricing benefit" to FPIS and an FXS supply expansion here only because I believe it's in the protocols best interest to align all governance holders, though it is unfortunate that this seems to come entirely at the expense of FXS holders.

We've sacrificed our revenue for quite a while for the good of the protocol and a better tomorrow, FPIS did not, but will now reap the rewards of that sacrifice. Additionally, We are now diluting supply share as well as governance power to unite all holders.

In exchange, we bring governance and potential revenue of fpi under the FXS umbrella (currently rev. much lower in comparison, but I believe it has potential to grow significantly on Fraxtal united under the FXS umbrella) and are pushing all users, locked and not locked, into a max lock scenario they may not have chosen of their own volition (though, with the introduction of the cvxFXS route they're hardly illiquid.)

Nevertheless, clearly Sam and Team want a merger, for obvious reasons.

Am I absolutely ecstatic to have my supply, apr, and power % diluted? No. I'm not. Quite the opposite. But, personally, again, I'm willing to make the sacrifice for the unity of the protocol and out of respect for the teams vision and wishes.

United we stand, divided we fall.

This is what i am talking about why do you think FPIS has had any sacrifices. How about the growth in development sacrifice. When was the last time any development has happened in the FPIS ecosystem?

FXS holder hold 52% of voting FPIS and will receive nothing for that interest

I dont see that as a sacrifice. You chose to bet on FPIS because of FPIs safety net against inflation, a mission it has fulfilled, while giving locked supporters solid APR. "Growth in development sacrifice" is a label you made up because of your personal opinion. In reality you had the choice of FXS, at the time backstopping FRAX in its algorithmic stablecoin stage, or FPIS, governing the anti-inflation mechanism and claiming irs excess profits. You chose FPIS. So how can you say "we sacrificed growth and development" ? It has done exactly what it was designed to do and paid high APRs the entire time. Meanwhile, FXS sacrificed its entire revenue stream for the most important piece of the entire protocol (FRAX CR100) before the introduction of frxETH and Fraxtal. The introduction of Fraxtal's revenue to the mix, in my opinion, will generate substantial revenue for the entire system, enough that the FPIS dilution does not bother me enough to oppose it, but thats besides the point. My point was simply that this merger entirely favors FPIS. I dont see a single down side for FPIS at this point. Do you? Nevertheless, im willing to support it because I believe the merger is in the best interest of the protocol.

gl with the price of fxs with the merge, i dont think we need that while we are already one of the most underperfomed coin for now

Zoom out.

Guys this is crazy talk. Penalizing people with worse than market rates if they don't lock? Charging market rates with a 2 year lock?! Nothing about that is enticing to any fpis holder

I was just spitballings numbers as an example of what I meant man. Obviously bad examples , but I wasn't proposing those conversions. You should pay a visit to the governance form sir. I think most FPIS holders would be in favor of the things being said.. assuming of course they're not deadlocked on an unreasonable 1:1

I was just trying to say, I think offering multiple "lock/conversion" options would be a good idea, since different people have different goals and objectives and wants and needs, instead of trying to push a singular conversion rate on everyone. Also, if im understanding correctly, from the sounds of things(?) Convex will have a liquid wrapper involved in all this somehow or another??? Which would effectively make the positions liquid. But, im still not entirely sure how that would work

Its funny that you said i made that "growth in development" because SAM is the one that said that they where expanding on FPIS platform. I didn't make that up. You should check your facts before making a comment. I have been here from the beginning.

Oh right. How ignorant of me to reply to someone responding to me. Source your claims? Even if the statement was ever made, tech is always changing. The point is, FXS has always been the core of the protocol. To insinuate that the proposal favoring FPIS so heavily is justified or balanced because FPIS holders are owed some kind of compensation for a "lack of development and growth sacrifice" seems absolutely absurd to me.