Thank you everyone for the thoughtful comments and questions. We are monitoring the community discussion in the governance forum, questions submitted to us by email at tokenizedequity@centrifuge.io, and other channels. We will respond cumulatively to questions we receive during the comment period.
I’m curious as to what exact and tangible benefits team can assure for tokenisation in the short term. Bigger projects like Morpho and Maple have doubled down on their token and explicitly been against equity structure and have grown a lot. Projects like SECZ have been on a downtrend since listing. So I have my apprehension as to weather being a equity really helps expansion.
TradFi is moving to Crypto rails and we want to move Crypto to TradFi. At the very least I’m in the camp of this should be optional move. I want my assets on chain and not with some regulator in an island. You may convert part of the token into equity and even tokenised stock both trading at par value and token convertable to tokenised equity through a portal (no time limit) but not a compulsion for anybody. You can route the fees back for token holders in the form of dividends or buy and burn.
Assume 100 cfg tokens (70 tokenised stock + 30 CFG tokens). $10 fees collected for distribution to holders. Pay $7 to 70 tokenised stock holders as dividend, use $3 to buy and burn $CFG from market.
2 Likes
What? years you say that token will be pushing up and build around them, we trust you and now what? Convert it and shut down on crypto market? This is how it done? I hold coin 5 years for this moment? This no make sense. Think before write news like this. I dont want and i cant hold papers on market, i invest token becouse of that and im lost lot of money now-token dumping- and now they tell i can sell token- this is not solution its a scam
5 Likes
We bought a cryptocurrency.
I believed in this team so much, i trusted you.
This looks like not a proposal but a decision that has already been made, this feels unfair and not in the interest of your supporters.
I will sell and go away if nothing change (in good ways) clearly for the CFG token.
We don’t want you’re kyc registered cayman island equities.
4 Likes
Hi, I don’t know if my vote changes anything as I only have a small amount of tokens.
what I want to know is what’s going to happen to token holders like me?. What do we need to do if you decided to go with this proposal? How are we going to convert our tokens into equity?.
waiting on further instructions.
As a long-term investor holding CFG tokens, I strongly oppose CP172.
When I invested many $ of my capital into this project at $0.36, I explicitly chose to buy a crypto asset with utility and liquidity on a public blockchain. I did not sign up to invest in a traditional entity or legacy equity registered in the Cayman Islands.
Forcing crypto investors into a traditional equity structure with zero secondary market liquidity, mandatory trust structures, and endless KYC/AML bureaucracy is a complete violation of trust. This sudden 180-degree pivot is unacceptable and breaches the social contract established in CP171 less than a year ago.
If you want to phase out the token, you should offer a fair, guaranteed buyback option at historical entry prices for those who backed you from the start. Forcing retail to accept massive market losses because the team wants to cater to TradFi institutions is fundamentally wrong.
I will be voting NO on this proposal.
11 Likes
I am an ordinary CFG holder through OKX. Regarding this Token-to-Equity proposal, I currently have three main concerns.
First, I need clarity on whether ordinary holders like me, who hold CFG through OKX, will ultimately be eligible to participate in the conversion from CFG into Centrifuge equity. I hope the specific jurisdictional and investor eligibility requirements can be disclosed before the governance vote.
Second, if I am unable to convert because of jurisdictional or other eligibility restrictions that are not the result of my own choice, I do not believe the current proposal’s suggestion that holders may “sell CFG on the open market or continue holding it as they do today” is an adequate solution.
If Centrifuge’s primary value-accrual mechanism ultimately moves from CFG to company equity, then for a long-term holder who is willing to convert but is prevented from doing so solely because of eligibility restrictions, being told to either keep holding the old CFG token or sell it on the market effectively means that this group bears the economic cost of the structural transition.
I did not choose to exit Centrifuge, nor did I choose to reject the conversion. If the purpose of this new structure is to allow long-term CFG holders to participate more directly in the future value created by Centrifuge, then existing holders should not lose their long-term economic interest simply because they are unable to qualify as direct equity holders.
Third, I therefore hope the team will seriously consider designing an alternative mechanism for holders in this situation.
Personally, I am not attached to becoming a direct shareholder of Centrifuge. I do not particularly care about voting rights, being listed on the shareholder register, or other corporate governance rights. What matters to me is whether, as a long-term CFG holder, I can continue to participate economically in Centrifuge’s future enterprise value growth, dividends, and eventual exit value.
One possible reference point is the model currently used by OKX for certain tokenized U.S. equities: an eligible entity holds the underlying real shares, while another financial instrument passes through the economic exposure of those shares, including price appreciation, dividends, and other economic benefits, to product holders. Those holders do not need to become direct shareholders of the underlying company.
I understand that Centrifuge may remain a private company after the conversion, which would create obvious challenges around valuation, price discovery, and liquidity. I also do not believe that any such economic-interest product would need to have continuous secondary-market liquidity comparable to a publicly traded stock from day one.
At least for me personally, even if such an economic interest could not be freely traded for a considerable period of time, I would be willing to accept that. Preserving my long-term economic exposure matters more to me than having immediate liquidity.
So I hope the team can address a more fundamental question:
If some existing CFG holders are willing to participate in the conversion but are unable to receive Centrifuge equity because of jurisdictional or eligibility restrictions, would Centrifuge be willing to design an alternative mechanism that preserves the long-term economic interest associated with their existing CFG holdings, rather than leaving them only with the options of continuing to hold the legacy CFG token or selling it on the open market?
1 Like
Wait a minute, are you trying to say that you introduced a treasury, added inflation, migrated to Ethereum, added even more inflation of new tokens to fund ‘development’—only to announce in the end that your actual plan is to abandon crypto entirely? Isn’t this a textbook case of exploiting your own community? How else are we supposed to interpret this
10 Likes
不要天真了，他们这个操作这是在榨取cfg的最后价值
I think this is potentially a very good idea, if it can be structured properly.
It would be good to have options beyond CFG simply remaining a governance token with something like a future fee switch or buyback. If there is a way for holders to capture more of the value being created by Centrifuge itself, that could be much more meaningful.
There are obviously a lot of unanswered questions at this stage — valuation, dilution, the post-conversion cap table, liquidity, eligibility and, importantly, what happens to holders in jurisdictions where they can’t participate.
I also have to assume the team has an interest in realising value from the large amount of CFG held by the protocol/treasury. In that sense, they are potentially in a similar position to the rest of us holders: the underlying success of Centrifuge needs to translate into value somehow.
Another important question is how new investors would be priced into the equity and whether existing CFG holders would be adequately protected from future dilution.
Ultimately, though, the key question for me is simple: how much of the value of Centrifuge actually flows through to existing CFG holders?
The idea is interesting. I’d be very open to it if the eventual structure genuinely captures more of the value we’re all hoping Centrifuge creates. But there are still plenty of details that need to be worked through.
Has your team gone completely silent? Two full days and CFG is like this, with zero answers to the community. Is this how irresponsible you are? You release a proposal with no details, no notes, nothing. You’ve wiped out most of my money.
4 Likes
I am a French fiscal resident, holding the tokens on OKX EMEA. I’d be naturally open to whatever approach creates more value per unit of ownership but very keen learning more about the specifics in my case. Also the regulatory and admin burden of whether becoming a directly registered member or rather adjusting the holdings below the threshold.
I am extremely frustrated and angry about the way this discussion has been handled.
I hold more than 150,000 CFG.
I started accumulating CFG in March 2024, when CFG was trading at around $1, because I believed in Centrifuge’s long-term direction. I have continued holding and accumulating for nearly two years.
Most importantly, after CP171, I continued buying CFG because I trusted what the team was communicating: that you were working on ways to make the value created by Centrifuge accrue to CFG.
And now, suddenly, we are discussing converting CFG into equity.
Do you understand what kind of message this sends to long-term CFG holders?
The problem is not simply that the team wants to explore an alternative structure. The problem is how casually such a fundamental change to the entire investment thesis of CFG has been introduced.
Where is the valuation of Centrifuge Inc.?
What percentage of the company would CFG holders actually own?
What class of shares would we receive?
What rights would those shares have?
What happens to CFG holders who cannot or do not convert?
What happens to CFG itself afterward?
What are the tax and regulatory implications for non-US holders?
What happens to liquidity?
Where is the actual economic analysis showing that this creates more value for existing CFG holders?
None of these fundamental questions have clear answers.
Yet a proposal capable of completely changing the investment thesis of CFG was introduced publicly before these basic details were available.
And the result?
Confidence in CFG has collapsed, and the token has lost another roughly 20% of its value.
For people who have held CFG for years, this is not some abstract governance experiment.
This is our money.
Some of us invested significant amounts of our savings because we trusted the direction communicated by the team.
If CP171 tells holders that you are exploring mechanisms to bring more of Centrifuge’s value to CFG, and holders continue accumulating based on that direction, you cannot casually introduce a completely different thesis shortly afterward — “perhaps the token should become equity” — without providing the most basic economic details.
That destroys trust.
I am not saying that token-to-equity should never be discussed.
I am saying that a proposal this fundamental should have been accompanied from day one by serious economic analysis, valuation assumptions, ownership calculations, shareholder rights, legal feasibility, and a clear explanation of what happens to CFG.
Instead, holders have been given enormous uncertainty and almost no numbers.
Meanwhile, the market is pricing that uncertainty immediately.
Long-term CFG holders deserve better than this.
If the team genuinely believes CP172 maximizes value for CFG holders, then please demonstrate it with numbers.
Show us the valuation.
Show us the cap table.
Show us the dilution.
Show us exactly what one CFG would economically represent.
Show us what rights the shares would provide.
Show us what happens to CFG afterward.
And explain clearly how this is consistent with the direction communicated in CP171.
Until then, asking long-term holders to simply trust another new direction is not good enough.
Many of us have already trusted you for years.
6 Likes
The community needs to have a meaningful discussion, so could you first publicly respond to the questions that have already been raised? From my perspective, many of these issues appear to be technical or structural problems that should be solvable. If they are not going to be addressed, then the concern becomes whether the team is simply unwilling to bear the cost of solving them and is instead prepared to abandon part of the community.
2 Likes
Hi everyone. Just a reminder that we are monitoring the community discussion in the governance forum, questions submitted to us by email at tokenizedequity@centrifuge.io, and other channels. We will respond cumulatively to questions we receive during the comment period.
1 Like
Please stop responding with generic or chatbot-like answers and address the situation directly.
This has already been left without a meaningful response for two days, while CFG continues to lose value and holder confidence is deteriorating.
Before we see an even more severe price collapse, please at least give us a brief and direct update on what the team is currently discussing, what direction is being considered, and when holders can expect concrete clarification.
We are not asking for every detail to be finalized immediately.
But at this point, silence is making the situation worse.
Please give CFG holders something concrete to work with as soon as possible.
7 Likes
By proposing a 1:1 token-to-equity conversion in CP172, the management has effectively admitted that $CFG was always intended to represent an investment contract and corporate equity. This creates catastrophic regulatory exposure. You are publicly building a textbook case for the SEC to classify all prior public distributions of $CFG as an unregistered securities offering under the Howey Test.
Furthermore, forcing long-term holders into illiquid, Cayman-registered shares without any functioning secondary market destroys the very definition of a digital asset. Major centralized exchanges like Binance cannot legally host illiquid corporate shares masquerading as crypto tokens. By pushing CP172, you risk triggering immediate forced delistings due to liquidity depletion and regulatory non-compliance.
If the new leadership wants to pivot to a TradFi corporate model, you must first clear your liabilities to the public market. The only legally viable and compliant path forward that prevents severe litigation risks is to offer a guaranteed corporate buyback at historical entry prices for those who funded your early growth. Pushing this through without an exit window for retail is an invitation for class-action lawsuits.
3 Likes
Urgent: Formal investor complaint regarding CP172 and corporate censorship
I am contacting you directly because your media team has chosen to block my account on X (Twitter) instead of addressing legitimate investor concerns regarding CP172. As a long-term investor holding over 280,000 $CFG tokens, I find this corporate censorship absolutely unacceptable.
By proposing a 1:1 token-to-equity conversion in CP172, your management is effectively admitting that $CFG was designed to represent corporate equity. This creates catastrophic regulatory exposure. You are publicly building a textbook case for the SEC to classify all prior public distributions of $CFG as an unregistered securities offering under the Howey Test.
Furthermore, censoring and blocking large public holders on social media who demand accountability is a severe breach of your fiduciary duties and destroys your credibility in the Web3 space. Legacy institutions like Coinbase and BlackRock will not look kindly on a management team that triggers class-action lawsuits and forced exchange delistings due to liquidity depletion.
If the new leadership wants to pivot to a TradFi model, you must clear your liabilities to the public market. We demand a guaranteed corporate buyback at historical entry prices. Silencing us on Twitter will not make this legal and financial risk go away.
I expect a formal response to this
4 Likes
Is it true that this person was blocked by Centrifuge’s official X account?
If so, can someone clarify what exactly they said that resulted in the block?
I am genuinely furious about this.
I have been monitoring the forum, X, the official website, and every available channel throughout the entire day, waiting for any meaningful response from the team regarding CP172.
So far, we have seen almost no substantive communication.
If it is actually true that, while providing no meaningful clarification to holders, the official account is instead blocking investors who are legitimately demanding answers and accountability, then I find that completely unacceptable.
This is supposed to be an RFC — a process specifically intended to gather community feedback.
If criticism of CP172 is being censored or investors are being blocked simply for demanding explanations, then this raises a much bigger issue than the proposal itself.
Please clarify:
Was this person actually blocked by the official Centrifuge account?
And if so,
What specific statement or behavior justified the block?
I sincerely hope there is a reasonable explanation, because if legitimate investor criticism is being silenced while the team remains publicly inactive on the core concerns surrounding CP172, that would seriously damage my remaining trust in Centrifuge.
6 Likes
Believe me, they just banned me.In Polish languge its says I Cant reply to CFG, I contributed a significant amount of content under the latest proposal, raising serious concerns and pointing out corporate irregularities. However, I refrained from using vulgar insults, despite their unprofessional behavior strongly provoking such a reaction.
