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?