1:1 swap and put the 48m team tokens in a DAO

I propose that a swap of engima to scrt tokens take place at a 1:1 ratio. And that the 48m scrt that is currently allocated to the team be put in a dao that is under control of the validators.

The swap. Currently there are 150m eng tokens with roughly half in circulation. Under this proposal there will be 125m scrt with roughly 75m in circulation. Team funds are NOT eligible for a swap

This dao will be responsible for paying for dev work, and maintaining the network. I suggest that the community hires the Enigma team to develop the network with the goal of getting secret contracts launched. I suggest around 25m scrt. This would then give the Enigma team around 15% of the supply and allow them to participate in governenence

The original 45 million in ico raised was for developing of a dencetralized private computation network. The Team has yet to fulfill its duty to the ico fundraising. The team has also stated on multiple occasions that the ico funds were very well managed and they had a runway for many years. Seeing that the team has been conservative with spending there is no reason to give the team 48 million tokens to fund a roadmap that has already been funded since ico.

This also ensures the team does not have 35% of the total voting power of the network with the ability to veto any proposal.


Do you have anything you can share that shows how anything similar works on other existing systems today? Thanks in advance. I’m not an expert on DAOs. I’d be happy to have the resources shared.

Cardano does something similar.


I really like where this could take us actually @MrGarbonzo !!

Since the 45 million initially were raised, and team has been moderate in spending this could be a good course of action.
Since they have to deal with the SEC, they can potentially refund the money for the ENG to US investors, they have to get back the ENG. This refunded ENG they should be able to swap to SCRT tokens on network (on the DAO), and they can use the standing funds for continued development of the initial secret contracts for the Enigma network by putting them in a Escrow-Contract(As part of the treasury) that could also be potentially controlled by the Validators based on proposals and fed to the Enigma Team (Intitally as Bitcoin assets and then later as SCRT tokens or both) for development. This is plagued by legalities though and still reliant on the Enigma team.

We will need to have reserve funds, in a treasury set up on the network to pay developers and this would include the Enigma team, something like how QTUM and Decred have for the network for intital development and then reserves set out for future network upgrades.

With a proposed network swap of 1:1 is still possible that could swap ENG for SCRT.
Although i have some qualms with the new token economics but that is an other potential proposal that could be in favor of the ENG token holders providing benefits, to keep the community strong.

If i see some potential here i dont mind starting a document to build towards a proposal for the same as i am feeling this is very critical to the network to make enigma sustainable.


This proposal assumes that the “Collective” group think of a DAO knows better than the Enigma team on path forward. The Enigma team which designed and implemented the network to date.

A decentralized private computation network is different than decentralized governance. Please keep in mind that there are many decentralized networks in existence with centralized control. And there are infrastructure components on many networks that cannot be decentralized and must be managed by a core team.

I also don’t agree with this statement “The Team has yet to fulfill its duty to the ico fundraising.” Enigma has accomplished something that pretty impressive IMO. Being able to have decentralized autonomous signing entity that does not leak the private key may be more powerful than you realize.

I would hate to stump their progress as I plan to develop on this platform. If a DAO were to take control believing that they “Collectively” know better than the Enigma team, I doubt I would have anything to do with the project.


Great post first of all, and let me clarify that nobody’s speaking “Collectively”

I personally feel that some of the proposals going around are like the tail wagging the dog.

Would like to remind folks of this statement, if you trust the team, keep it in mind;

"We have worked tirelessly to explore legally compliant avenues for facilitating a token swap between the ERC-20 ENG token and the mainnet SCRT coin.

We are continuing discussions with our legal counsel and regulators to identify an effective means of facilitating a swap that complies with all relevant securities regulations, but for the time being, our team is not able to proceed with facilitating a swap.

We appreciate your patience and will update you as things move forward."


I sure hope the dog wags its tail soon! :dog2:


I strongly agree with you, @NODEhaven. I’ve seen firsthand their hard work, dedication and commitment to the development of the Enigma protocol, network, tooling, partner projects and integrations, and probably a lot more.

This stuff is hard and technical challenges are inevitable. I would rather see the team pivot and make better ecosystem and architectural decisions than staying on the Ethereum platform, given the issues noted. And I trust the Enigma core team to make these decisions more than a collective.

And I also doubt that I would be involved with the project were a DAO to take control. To me, that says there is no trust with the team and has an “us vs. them” feel to it. I want to give the team every chance of success and for those reasons I can support a 1:1 swap, but I can’t support the team’s tokens locked in a DAO to be released by community vote.


I understand where the thought is coming from here, but locking team funds in a DAO would grind productivity to an absolute halt. It would remove any/all decision making capability from the team and make doing business impossible. This would surely kill the project at this stage of development. Any decision would take weeks to be put into action. Hell, they wouldn’t even be able to make a new hire without approval. I know trust is an issue, but we must all remember SEC scrutiny and settlement wasn’t the team’s decision. The team could have easily walked away at this trying time. They have not and have remained committed to their original vision. I think we should support their decision to keep building and give them the tools/resources to do so.


I did modify my original proposal. After thinking more about it I think the team should retain some portion of their scrt in order to have a stake in the network

I think some where around 15% control for the team is a fair amount. This would give them decent voting rights and incentives(they can always accept delegation to increase this if many are happy with their decisions)

As far as this limiting the teams ability to function I don’t see how it does this. They should still have ico funds to pay for development/new hires right?

Cardano and others function under a very similar model and they don’t seem to have issues

What do they need these scrt funds for? Is there a planned use for these tokens?


Is there any possibility of a 1 to 1 swap to be facilitated by a DEX? My biggest concern is the mandate that you must be on Binance (or whatever large exchange) to have the 1 to 1 swap occur. As someone who operates entirely through DEXs for a variety of philosophical and privacy reasons, I am slightly fearful of what the swap would entail.

Any swap will not be entirely dependent on a centralized exchange. Stay tuned for more details from the community.


Great to hear! That changes my outlook significantly.

1 Like

I agree with you Laura that the team is best suited and i fully trust them.
But you are missing one factor, that they may legally not be able to work with ENG due to the SEC, and if they are to facilitate a swap there is definitely gonna be some legal work on their part that may hinder the network.

As far as I am seeing enigma team is a strong development team, and that has been there stance since the beginning. If for legal reasons they are unable to do much, we as a ‘Collective’ would need to come and stand up and help the Enigma team to build this network. The SEC can only hurt the team if they are the central governance of the network but with a DAO the SEC cannot crackdown this community easily.

The reason I like the DAO idea is that we have seen successful projects around it and it is a means to decentralized future which enigma can continue to be part of. I don’t see it as a “us vs them” more of a “we can make this a successful project”. The DAO would build stronger governance and give the community a say in the path towards a successful Enigma Protocol. Which either way would be impossible without the core team involved.

If the DAO proposal is to be taken seriously it would require the support of the validators (you), the core dev team ( Enigma ) and the community to collectively agree to build something on the network.

This stuff is hard and technical challenges are inevitable. I would rather see the team pivot and make better ecosystem and architectural decisions than staying on the Ethereum platform, given the issues noted.
To this point the community would only ever agree to proposed changes by valid proposals, you as a validator could easily support the Enigma Core team proposals just like I would do if I was a validator , as an end-user we are provided a say in the development and moment of the project, I see nothing wrong with that as the team has been consistently asking for community feedback over the past few years for the development of the network so far.


Thank you for your thoughtful perspective @mohammedpatla!

I was under the impression that the community was facilitating the swap. I definitely think a DAO is worth exploring, but I guess I don’t understand why the team’s existing SCRT tokens need to be locked up in it. There is a community pool–maybe the DAO can be tied to that for funding proposals? Idk this is all new to me :stuck_out_tongue: .


Isn’t the community pool part of the 48m?

I don’t know tbh. The explorer is showing this:

Maybe that’s not accurate though.

I think the SWAP and DAO can be regarded as to different things, although the SWAP will build economics which would be part of the DAO governance.

Also there is a proposal going around for the community swap as well thanks to @moonstash, https://github.com/secretnodes/secretnodes.org/issues/13
This is to force the swap and take the control of the Enigma-Core team and maybe deviate from the SEC crackdown ( but i am not sure to what extent as the team is tight lipped on this).

No it’s not. The community pool is funded through a community tax parameter in the protocol. It can be manipulated via proposals amongst validators. It can be paid into and disbursed from. Take a look at Cosmos’ proposal to activate the community pool to get an idea of how it works: https://hubble.figment.network/cosmos/chains/cosmoshub-3/governance/proposals/7

As for the DAO @mohammedpatla some of the Governance functionality you’re speaking about already exists on the mainnet that has been launched :slight_smile: This is a large reason why it was launched I believe. There are people working on a swap behind the scenes. This effort will be brought forth more publicly soon when more has been flushed out.


I support a 1:1 swap.
But I don’t support the team’s tokens locked in a DAO:

  1. Firstly, the core team is building a protocol and has a vision of its development for 10+ years in advance. First of all, funds will be needed for the further development of the protocol:
  • search for new engineers / team expansion in all areas
  • offices rental worldwide
  • hackathons
  • protocol improvement / dapps development / ecosystem support
  • marketing
  • purchase of additional equipment and more.
  1. I believe that if the DAO takes over the management of the project, the team will lose its freedom of action in decision-making, and this will also greatly slow down the development of the business. Any, even minor change will require a catastrophic amount of time for approval. Such a step is an indicator of our distrust of the team and their vision of development.

  2. For 3 years, the core team developed a protocol and presented a code on the github. The team has replenished with new engineers and is ready to continue to work on the product. This suggests that the team has no problems with the correct allocation of resources. I observed how many projects closed in 2018-2019 due to improper distribution of funds.

I believe that we should support the core team, provide them with all possible funds for successful work (5-10+ years)

It’s my personal opinion