Team,
You should first solve the issue of who ever miss the migration WCFG to CFG first befor putting any proposals like this, we have been asking for solution for months now in Discord still no proper answer? please solve that first.
1 Like
I’ve been following Centrifuge since 2018 and have been a strong believer in this project for years. I started buying CFG around $2 and continued to dollar-cost average even as the price fell, because my conviction in what Centrifuge was building never disappeared.
But I have to say this: the way CP172 is being handled is becoming extremely frustrating.
This isn’t simply about whether someone supports or opposes the proposal. It’s about trust, transparency and respect for the community that has supported Centrifuge through the good times and the bad.
Right now, a growing part of the community feels like CP172 is being pushed forward regardless of their concerns. Whether that is the team’s intention or not, that perception matters.
And the timing makes it even worse.
The broader crypto market is becoming increasingly bullish, yet CFG holders are dealing with uncertainty around the future of the token, its value proposition and what CP172 ultimately means for them. People who supported this project for years are watching their investment lose value while being asked to accept a fundamental change to the structure they originally bought into.
That should concern the Centrifuge team far more than the price of CFG on any particular day.
Because the biggest asset Centrifuge risks losing here isn’t token value. It’s community trust.
Markets recover. Prices recover. Projects can change direction.
Trust is much harder to rebuild once it is gone.
Long-term holders are not the enemy of Centrifuge. Many of us stayed because we genuinely believed in the technology, the vision and the team. Criticism of CP172 should therefore not be treated as resistance to progress. It should be recognised for what it is: people who care deeply about Centrifuge asking whether this is truly the best path forward.
If CP172 is genuinely the right solution, then convince the community.
Answer the difficult questions. Provide the missing details. Address the concerns openly. Demonstrate clearly how existing CFG holders are protected and how they participate fairly in the future value being created.
But please don’t make the community feel that the decision has effectively already been made and that their only role is to accept it.
Centrifuge has spent years building credibility and a loyal community. Don’t sacrifice years of trust just to push a proposal through.
Before CP172 goes any further, I strongly believe the team should listen carefully, reconsider the areas causing legitimate concern, and work with the community to find a structure that people can understand and support.
I still want Centrifuge to succeed. That is exactly why I’m saying this.
A strong project can survive a bear market. It can survive a bad quarter. It can even survive a failed proposal.
What it cannot afford to lose is the trust of the people who believed in it from the beginning.
3 Likes
I’ve been reading this thread for a few days and want to suggest a middle path instead of a one-shot conversion window. I’m one of the smaller holders (below the 100k threshold), so the eligibility question matters to me personally.
Three ideas that work together. None of them need Centrifuge to spend any cash:
1. Make the conversion right long-lived, say 3-5 years with quarterly windows, instead of a single window. And make the right transferable, or held in escrow through the CoinList trust for people in countries that aren’t eligible yet. That way nobody gets forced out just because of where they live today. Institutions that want more equity can simply buy rights from holders who can’t use them.
2. Burn the CFG that gets converted instead of keeping it in treasury. A few people here already asked what happens to the surrendered tokens and there’s no answer yet. Burning is cleaner, and it’s what makes the math below work.
3. Let unconverted CFG be staked as first-loss protection for the RWA pools. This is basically what TIN was back in the Tinlake days. Issuers who want deeper protection pay a fee in USDC, part goes to stakers as yield and part buys CFG on the market and burns it. The company pays nothing and gets junior capital for free, which is normally the expensive part.
Now the math, because I think this is where it gets interesting. Say P shares are reserved for token holders and S is the CFG supply. The ratio is R = P / S. Conversions don’t change R at all, both sides shrink proportionally (I checked). But the burns from point 3 do raise R, for everyone still holding, automatically. No artificial schedule needed.
Quick example: 400M shares reserved (40% of 1B authorized), supply 700M, so R = 0.571 shares per CFG. If fees burn 100M tokens over time, R becomes 0.667. That’s +16.7% for everyone who stayed, at zero cost to the company.
So my three questions for the team: will converted CFG be burned or held? Can the window be multi-year with transferable or escrowed rights? And would you consider issuer-funded first-loss staking, so the token has a productive role during the transition?
1 Like
I oppose the current direction of CP172.
CFG has grown alongside the Centrifuge ecosystem as a crypto asset, and I believe it should remain a core token of the Centrifuge network rather than becoming primarily a bridge into company equity.
The fundamental issue today is not that Centrifuge lacks growth. TVL, protocol revenue, institutional adoption, and overall business activity have continued to grow. The real problem is that this growth has not been sufficiently reflected in the value of the CFG token.
Instead of solving this problem by converting CFG into equity, I believe Centrifuge should focus on creating stronger and more direct value-accrual mechanisms for CFG itself.
For example, a portion of protocol revenue could be used to buy back CFG from the open market, with some or all of the purchased tokens being burned. Another possibility would be to connect protocol revenue more directly to CFG staking incentives.
As Centrifuge’s TVL and revenue grow, there should be a mechanism that increases demand for CFG, reduces its effective supply, or creates stronger incentives for long-term holding.
CFG holders should be able to participate directly in the economic growth of the Centrifuge ecosystem.
Rather than prioritizing token-to-equity conversion, I would strongly prefer Centrifuge to strengthen CFG’s utility and value accrual and build a sustainable crypto-economic model around the token itself.
CFG should remain a core asset of the Centrifuge ecosystem, not simply become an option to convert into equity.
1 Like
I understand that preparing a comprehensive FAQ takes time, but I hope the team can share the key details as soon as possible.
At the moment, many holders are trying to evaluate the proposal without having critical information about eligibility, conversion mechanics, shareholder rights, liquidity, and the treatment of non-converted CFG.
The uncertainty itself is creating a lot of anxiety and speculation within the community. Having clear answers sooner would allow everyone to have a more constructive discussion based on facts rather than assumptions.
I appreciate the team taking the time to prepare the FAQ, and I hope it can be shared soon so holders can properly understand the proposal and make informed decisions.
2 Likes
If the migration of wcfg to cfg was problematic, just imagine how many problems could occur in converting cfg to shares.
Dear team, please listen to the community and give up on the cp 172 incentive. At least, let us enjoy one bull cycle, we have waited long for this and it was a very stressful journey. Let us wait with the cp 172 until the next bear market and until you have a detailed simulation of how the cfg to share conversion would look like (quantitative model). You can’t change the rules every 9 months - that is not fair to your token holders.
3 Likes
I am a small CFG holder and I would appreciate clarification on one important point before the upcoming tokenholder vote.
The proposal states that the final parameters — including the launch date, duration, eligibility requirements and other terms and conditions — will be communicated after Board approval, the governance vote has passed, and the legal restructuring has been completed.
Could you please clarify exactly what CFG holders will be authorizing with a YES vote?
Specifically:
1. Will all economically material terms of the CFG-to-equity conversion be disclosed before CFG holders cast their votes?
2. If some material terms are finalized only after the vote — including eligibility, conversion conditions, shareholder/trust rights, restrictions, or other economically significant terms — will CFG holders have a second governance vote to approve the final structure before it becomes effective?
3. If there will be no second vote, does a YES vote on CP172 effectively authorize the Board/Foundation to determine and implement those remaining terms without further tokenholder approval?
4. Finally, if the final terms differ materially from what tokenholders understood when voting, will the original approval still be considered sufficient, or would another tokenholder approval be required?
I believe these points are important because tokenholders should be able to understand not only the general concept of the proposal, but also exactly what authority they are granting and whether they will have the right to approve the final economic terms before implementation.
Thank you for the clarification.
3 Likes
I share the same sentiments as most of the community on this idea which represents ia very bad deal for token holders. I am a large holder of the taken since the day it launched this feels like a rug pull in many ways. If this motion were to pass we would be totally screwed over as the project owners are doing this solely for the selfish and greedy reasons. They have realise that the only bit of leverage we have is the governance control which gives us some controlling power. Remember they screwed us before when they eliminated staking and the price crashed. Now this proposal is having the same effect, only this time it will be the final nail in the coffin as they will dilute the shares making them worthless. We were told there would be buyback program then sillence. They have constant betrayed our trust and continue to do so. They are criminals as well as lying scum. I wish we had the power to kick some of the scumbags off the project they have broken our trust.. Let’s not forget they would be nowhere without our financial token support at beginning and now they treat us a pests. Well they can take this proposal and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.
7 Likes
It’s clear that in their pursuit of money, they’ll do anything for financial gain. Our pleas for them to reconsider their proposal mean nothing. They used us and are now casting us aside, keeping everything for themselves. There’s nothing we can do about it, but let’s hope karma catches up with them. Ruthless and blinded—they’ll eventually meet their match. Shame on you.
4 Likes
I’m extremely angry that, right in the middle of a strong crypto market — at a time when CFG finally had a real chance to recover and increase in value — you introduced this terribly timed idea and managed to push CFG into negative territory instead.
That said, even though I still think CP172 is a terrible idea in its current form, I can at least acknowledge that the intention of maintaining a single value-accrual mechanism for CFG holders appears to be consistent.
But if that is genuinely the intention, shouldn’t the most important conditions have been disclosed before throwing this proposal at the market?
Where is the fully diluted cap table?
What exactly do CFG holders own after conversion?
How is Anemoy included?
What happens to existing equity?
What did Coinbase actually invest in?
What are the rights of the shares we receive?
Who is eligible to convert?
What happens to liquidity and future dilution?
You created massive uncertainty first and are telling holders that the details will come later.
Seriously — did you actually think this through before publishing CP172?
If the purpose really is to maximize long-term value for CFG holders, then show us the structure and the numbers first. Don’t ask the market to trust an undefined promise while CFG holders absorb the damage.
4 Likes
If this is about regulation, why don’t you do something like Ondo did? At least try it first for 2-3 years. Believers in blockchain are the ones who have been supporting your program, not those in the traditional finance market. Don’t betray or disappoint or hurt those who have supported you.
4 Likes
To the CFG management team: we have received news of a crucial change affecting holders of CFG CP172. This announcement triggered a wave of sell-offs, immense uncertainty, and significant controversy. For me personally, it has caused a great deal of anxiety and stress. Do you realize that the holders of your token—your investors and the entire community—are real people? They are individuals who, to varying degrees, identify with your project. They are people who have pinned—or still pin—great hopes on you, sometimes investing their life savings. Yet, after releasing such a controversial announcement, what do you do next? You gauge sentiment? This is not a social experiment, and we are not guinea pigs; this involves real people and real stakes. Where are the concrete details? You simply announced a 14-day deadline and left it at that. That is not how things should be done. You are supposed to collaborate with your investors, not manage them. Are you capable of admitting a mistake and doing something about it, or will you continue to act with total disregard? Finally, I also submitted a request to have my suspension on X lifted. I explained that my comments amounted to nothing more than constructive criticism—free of name-calling or insults—so I do not understand the grounds for the suspension. Naturally, I haven’t received a reply in a week. That is simply how you operate.
3 Likes
Hey Novciu,
I really appreciate all your input into this conversation. Reading through your comments I feel that, though we need to stress to the team our concerns, the tone in your replies has become more of a doomsayer rather than a constructive opinion.
The purpose of CP172 is to explore the possibilities; nothing has been finalized. I too hope they reconsider some parts (or actually a lot of parts) to this proposal.
Especifically, I would like to see a hybrid where crypto and equity can exist.
2 Likes
I agree. To be honest, I believe the CFG team’s understanding of RWA is far beyond that of the community. However, I still feel that this discussion was handled too hastily. Given the team’s level of understanding, many of the questions and concerns from the community should have been foreseeable, and clear answers could have been provided alongside the proposal.
But this proposal, in my view, was simply too rushed. I sincerely hope the CFG team can approach the community with more seriousness and treat these discussions with the level of care and responsibility they deserve.
4 Likes
Yes, they understand the crypto industry much better than the average crypto holder. Exactly for that reason I am wondering why they timed the cp 172 exactly when the market started to recover 
Actually for me too, What about sanctions jurisdiction?
First time caller, long-time listener.
I have been following Centrifuge since 2019 and seen first-hand the transformation from PoC to institutional-grade tokenization platform. Always thought the CFG token was in a bit of weird spot, so when I saw this proposal I was elated. Tokens as a whole haven’t been performing well, and one of the primary reasons is that tokens lack the strong claims of ownership that shares do. Converting the tokens into equity, and then tokenizing that equity seems like a win-win of ownership and utility all-in-one. It would also make Centrifuge much more dynamic in its ability to enter strategic partnerships with institutional partners, many of whom struggle to see the value in ‘tokens’ in lieu of equity. It could potentially even lead to a positive repricing for CFG.
I have to say I’m a bit surprised at the negative discourse here. From a strategic point of view this seems like a no-brainer.
What are the benefits of converting tokens into shares? For years, the project grew by using tokens to unlock value. Now that the company has expanded, instead of just taking from its community, it ought to start giving something back—by implementing actual utility for the token. And what do we get instead? A proposal to abandon the token in favor of shares—a convenient escape for the company’s management that masks years of exploitation. Is that fair? It allows them to do whatever they please all over again. That is not how things should work, and it is far from a fair approach—unless, of course, we are talking about their own self-interest.
3 Likes
Honestly, this is becoming exhausting.
CP-172 has major implications for every CFG holder, yet several of the most important questions have remained unanswered for days.
I understand that preparing a comprehensive FAQ may take time, but the 14-day discussion period is almost over.
Can the team please confirm whether we will receive the promised FAQ and substantive answers before August 31?
At this point, I am not even asking for every detail immediately. A clear timeline for when holders can expect answers would at least show that these concerns are being taken seriously.
The continued silence is becoming increasingly difficult to understand.
1 Like
To the team Centrifuge its true that: The purchase of Grove may not be an investment, but rather an acquisition of votes to execute an equity conversion.
??
1 Like