NFTEarth Massive Circulating Supply Dilution Without Governance

I apologize if this is the incorrect forum for this post, but since much of the recent discussion here seems to be about L2DAO, I figure this is the most appropriate location.

I am cross-posting this from the Arbitrum DAO Forum, where Optimism users attempted to pass a warning about the behavior of L2DAO and affiliates.

It has come to my attention that without a governance vote, any discussion, or even an announcement, the team elected to bridge 55 million NFTE, over half the supply, over to Ethereum mainnet. Over 20 million NFTE was placed in a Uniswap pool at an extremely low price. This diluted the circulating supply by over 100%. Different addresses then bought from the pool, bridged the NFTE to Optimism and Arbitrum, and sold into what little liquidity remains. This process was repeated again yesterday, until the liquidity on both L2s was effectively reduced to zero. Afterward, the dev-controlled LP was broken, taking the ETH used to buy tokens, then reopened without the ETH.

The team has offered no explanation for these events, and quite frankly I cannot think of any that would be satisfactory. I am now in agreement with this project’s detractors: do not give grants to L2DAO, NFTEarth, or any other projects affiliated with this group. I say this as someone who has invested in NFTE.

Here are the two accounts involved in bridging NFTE to mainnet and creating uniswap liquidity:


Hey Nepeta, thanks for question. As you may already be aware, the original purpose of creating the $NFTE token was that it always remained multichain - this is why it was deployed on Ethereum Mainnet and bridged to multiple networks - the goal being to work in tandem with the marketplace, both the token and marketplace being on multiple networks simultaneously, with the aim of the token having liquidity on several networks. This has all been discussed at length and an objective of the project since the last vote on tokenomics was voted for on Snapshot on 2/8/2023. Please reference the Snapshot proposal to the community for more specifics: Snapshot

Also please reference the public announcement of the multichain expansion from the team’s Twitter handle about the recent collaboration with Multichain and the further adoption of additional networks here: There have been well documented obstacles in building liquidity on Optimism, and achieving some higher levels of liquidity on other networks had been a known and clear goal for quite some time. The hope that new liquidity on additional chains would bring additional users and awareness to the project. The token is live on Ethereum Mainnet, Arbitrum, Polygon zkEVM and additionally has been bridged to Polygon POS (though no intentions currently exist of attempting to build liquidity on Polygon POS). zkSync is still currently in the process of being integrated.

No one discussed, voted on, or consented to a unilateral increase of circulating supply amounting to over double what it was previously. This was done without alerting the community, at a price over three times lower than the average price traded on Arbitrum and Optimism’s liquidity pools, with a quantity of NFTE many times larger than any of the pools on either L2. Ethereum isn’t an L2, either, and at no point in recent weeks was it mentioned that the team was considering the creation of such a large liquidity pool on Ethereum mainnet - the most recent discussions pertained to zkSync and Polygon zkEVM. It is also very clear what the direct consequences of this decision were, as on-chain you can see millions of NFTE being purchased from the pool, bridged, and used to drain liquidity on both L2s.


It’s worth noting that before the bridging and dumping occurred, the team promoted the token price on Twitter via this tweet: (Now down 99%) This raises suspicions of a ‘pump and dump’ scheme. The teams actions speak louder than their words.

It’s concerning to hear about the behavior of L2DAO and affiliates regarding NFTE token bridge to Ethereum mainnet. The lack of governance vote, discussion, or announcement before bridging over half of the supply is not a good sign.

It’s essential to remain vigilant and do due diligence before investing in any project in the crypto space.

1 Like

Hey Weston - So should I understand your statement as a confirmation that the NFTEarth Team did indeed dilute the supply on Ethereum as outlined above? Were team wallets also involved in the the subsequent “drain[ing] [of] LPs on both L2s”?