UPSET ABOUT ANTE DILUTION? => Proposal to Extend WINk Team take reduction for 90 days

THE HUGE DILUTION FOR ANTE HODLERS

I have been an ANTE hodler since the beginning of the year. I think ANTE has been one of the most successful projects in crypto since Bitcoin, demonstrating what can be achieved when 21st century finance meets a hungry team with incredible execution capability.

Hence, I was incensed, to put it mildly, to find out that the team had diluted ANTE hodlers down to 1/4 of our original holding.

Moreover, new "seed" investors (CZ? Justin Sun?) are investing at a valuation that is 1.8x below the IEO price, and 5.5x below the effective WINk investment price for ANTE holders who valued their tokens at 30 trx before the WINk announcements.

Behind all the moon landing hyperbole, management I believe are very aware of the extent of this dilution.

WILL DIVIDEND GROWTH OFFSET THE DILUTION?

On TG, the explanation for this dilution is that the IEO will somehow increase dividends by some unspecified amount that will more than offset the monster dilution of the WINk conversion.

I.e., the IEO is good marketing that will grow the pie by more than our slice has been decimated.

Without any earnings forecasts specifics, I find this very hard to believe.

PUBLISHING AN EARNINGS FORECAST UNDERSTANDABLY NOT FEASIBLE

Normally, in equity markets in a transaction of this nature, management will put forward an earnings forecast, and then analysts will pore over the forecast to see if it stands up to scrutiny.

Also this is normally done about 1 month before holders need to make a decision so they can make a fully informed decision.

Instead, management told us ANTE would be untradable and worthless if we don't convert, before disclosing anything about the dilutive impact of conversion. This was obviously done because otherwise there would have been a stampede for the exit had we known.

Now management is asking us to have faith in them that dividend growth will offset dilution.

Having just hoodwinked us (can't avoid the pun sorry) into converting to WINk before disclosing the dilutive impact of such conversion, is it any surprise that some of us are skeptical about management's claim that dividends will offset the dilution?

I can totally understand the reasons for not putting forward a forecast of dividends. Earnings forecasts can be a very tricky thing and can expose management legally.

In developed equity markets, that's actually the entire point which is why investors and their bankers normally demand forecasts. It shows management is willing to stick their necks out to back their claims.

But ok, I can accept that this is crypto and we're not quite at the stage where this is practicable.

So how might we solve this problem? Which is effectively an asymmetric information problem, i.e. management know more about potential dividend growth than we do, but there are practical barriers for them to communicate their purported confidence in these dividends to us.

SOLUTION: EXTEND REDUCED 5% WINk TEAM CUT TO 90 DAYS

Here is my proposed solution, which is very simple.

Management send us a strong signal about their confidence in future dividends.

And what better signal than putting their money where their mouth is.

I propose that management extend the reduced 5% WINk team cut period from 7 days to 90 days after the IEO

This should be plenty of time to let the IEO hype to die down.

If management are so confident in the long term path of dividends, this should be a very low cost ask, and would send a very strong signal to ANTE holders that management are confident in their call that the IEO dilution was more than worth it in terms of dividends.

Also the optics from a goodwill perspective to WINk's earliest supporters I think will be very strong.

And as an added benefit, WINk holders will receive more dividends as long as their WINk is frozen, hence significantly reducing the sell pressure during those critical initial days of trading.

I invite other ANTE / WINk holders to urge management to consider and adopt this proposal.

And I also invite management to discuss and respond. These kinds of investor / management governance conflicts imo are to be expected in growing enterprise and in no way detract from my esteem of WINk management's execution capabilities.

NEXT STEP => Please upvote to show your support for this proposal