Question 1

Can OXD V1 and V2 be combined when considering price, supply, and rights?

Accepted Answer

No. This page concerns the original 0xDAO V1 token on Fantom. The archived official frontend labels V1 and V2 as separate contracts: V1 is 0xc165d941481e68696f43ee6e99bfb2b23e0e3114, while V2 is 0xc5A9848b9d145965d821AaeC8fA32aaEE026492d. The shared OXD ticker does not make their balances the same token. Price, supply, and protocol rights must be assessed for the specific version; holding V1 does not itself mean holding V2.

Question 2

Why did V1 use liquidity incentives to seek a Solidly veNFT allocation?

Accepted Answer

V1 used OXD farm rewards to attract deposits and raise protocol TVL while seeking a share of the Solidly veNFT airdrop. The stated target was a top-25 Fantom protocol ranking by TVL, not an OXD market-cap ranking. The project launched on 21 January 2022 and later reported receiving the largest veNFT allocation share; this was a historical result, not a continuing entitlement.

Question 3

Was the planned 2 billion OXD launch supply a hard cap and the actual circulating supply?

Accepted Answer

No. Two billion was the planned total supply stated in the January 2022 launch announcement, not proof of minted or circulating supply and not a contract hard cap. The historical V1 source showed an owner-only mint function without a displayed numerical cap check. Farm rewards were also limited by the emission window, and an empty pool did not mint for its empty interval. Planned issuance, actual minting, and circulation are therefore different measures.

Question 4

How did the V1 farm distribute OXD rewards among pools and depositors?

Accepted Answer

The historical V1 farm first allocated rewards to a pool using effective reward time, the global per-second emission, and that pool’s allocation-point share; it then credited depositors according to their share of the pool. In simplified form: user reward ≈ effective seconds × global OXD/second × pool allocation/total allocation × user deposit/pool deposits. This applies only while the pool is nonempty and allocation denominators are valid; integer rounding and reward-debt accounting also apply. Wallet-held OXD alone was not a farm deposit.

Question 5

In what order did the launch ISO and the OXD-USDC farm open?

Accepted Answer

The launch design put the initial staking offering (ISO) first. The OXD-USDC farm was to open one hour after launch, when the ISO completed. Those were sequential launch phases, so not every initial staking pool was the OXD-USDC pool. The one hour described launch timing, not a continuing lock period or a redemption wait; farm rewards still depended on pool configuration and deposited share.

Question 6

How did 0xDAO’s Olympus Pro bonds change who owned liquidity?

Accepted Answer

0xDAO participated in Olympus Pro bonds in January 2022, and a March update said OXDv1/USDC Olympus Pro liquidity was then being farmed. Under this bond design, participants transferred LP shares to the protocol in return for token rewards, so the protocol obtained the LP assets. That differs from a farm deposit, where LP shares are a user deposit position. Bond rewards vested linearly rather than becoming fully available at participation.

Question 7

How did the historical V1 migration allocate oxSOLID by share?

Accepted Answer

The historical migration output was staked oxSOLID, not a fixed-rate conversion to OXD V2. The published relation was: oxSOLID = (migrated V1 OXD / OXD circulating supply) × SOLID in 0xDAO’s veNFT. It allocated a share of the relevant SOLID position, rather than pricing OXD in the market or promising one oxSOLID per OXD. The March 2022 frontend showed this migration flow, but 0xDAO later sunset, so it is not a current conversion commitment.

Question 8

How was the additional partner-staking allowance for old-token migrators designed?

Accepted Answer

A 2 March 2022 launch-preparation announcement said a V1-to-oxSOLID migrator could additionally deposit up to three times the oxSOLID received through migration under the partner-staking arrangement. “Three times” described an additional-deposit allowance, not a threefold token gift or yield multiplier; the additional oxSOLID had to be supplied separately. It was a historical announced plan, not evidence that the parameter was permanently deployed or remains available after 0xDAO sunset.

Question 9

After migration, did unstaking oxSOLID return SOLID on the original path?

Accepted Answer

No. In the historical process, unstaking returned oxSOLID. Converting SOLID into oxSOLID was documented as one-way, so leaving the upper staking layer did not undo that conversion. The 1:1 minting of oxSOLID per SOLID locked described issuance accounting for the tokenized deposit, not a promise of a 1:1 redemption into freely circulating SOLID or equal market prices. Unstaking the receipt and unlocking the underlying asset were different actions.

Question 10

Why did a Solidly rebase not directly increase V1 OXD in a wallet?

Accepted Answer

During 0xDAO operations, rebased SOLID was converted to oxSOLID and passed to oxSOLID stakers. That was a separate token and staking ledger, not a balance increase for every holder in the original V1 OXD contract. A former V1 holder needed the historical migration and oxSOLID staking position to be in that reward path; merely holding V1 OXD was not the same position. This mechanism did not guarantee either token’s market price or a fixed return.

Question 11

Why could the V2 16-week voting lock not be applied to V1 OXD?

Accepted Answer

The 16-week lock and vlOXD voting belonged to the V2 system. The official contract directory listed V2 OXD at 0xc5A9848b9d145965d821AaeC8fA32aaEE026492d, whereas this page’s V1 is 0xc165d941481e68696f43ee6e99bfb2b23e0e3114. In the historical V2 design, locked V2 OXD created vlOXD voting power over SOLID emissions to liquidity positions. It was not a universal holding period or voting right for V1.

Question 12

How should rights tied to the old version be understood after 0xDAO sunset and Monolith followed?

Accepted Answer

On 26 October 2022, the successor team stated that 0xDAO had sunset permanently and described Monolith as a new chapter; its January 2023 review said Monolith had launched the prior month. These developments did not automatically turn the V1 contract into V2 or a successor asset. Historical V1 farm, partner-staking, and migration descriptions are historical mechanisms, not promises of ongoing service or rewards; successor balances, conversions, and governance require their own rules.

0xDAO (OXD) Price

Price of 0xDAO (OXD) Today in USD

Fear & Greed Index

About 0xDAO (OXD)

Use Cases and Features

Supply and Issuance Mechanism

Frequently Asked Questions About 0xDAO (OXD)