Recently, taking into account the enormity of the token migration undertaking and the best interest of the Holders, we decided to once again analyze all the reasons for and against the migration of OSEA to OMS. Due to the reasons described below, we would like to inform you that the migration has been canceled. We will implement all its advantages and promised actions, but directly to OSEA.

The migration was announced many months ago, and since then Omnisea has come a long way forward at every level. Today, as will be presented in detail in this article, we realize that the migration would result in many negative consequences and all the aspects that it was supposed to improve we can absolutely implement without migration, within the existing OSEA token. We believe that the changes stated below are extremely beneficial and will constitute a new strength of the token.

1. We have created a new $100,000 OSEA/ETH Pool on zkSync - Doubling OSEA liquidity and entering a new unique market.

2. The tokenomics promised for OMS is already implemented for OSEA - 50% supply locked with a 50-year vesting and 2-year cliff. Significant decentralization of the token, the next Team unlock has been extended for an additional year, and all unlocked funds are held in Multisig wallets (by Safe).

3. OSEA will have all OFTv2 capabilities by using the official LayerZero ProxyOFTv2 standard - migration to the new token is not needed to achieve compatibility with non-EVM chains. This feature was initially the main reason for introducing OMS. Today, EVM networks have only deepened their dominance, and we still found a way to do this without migration, directly for OSEA.

4. Preserving existing token’s Onchain history.

5. OSEA on two Pools - a significant part of OSEA's liquidity has been frozen for years and we could not use it for OMS that would be available only on one DEX (one Pool). By staying with OSEA, we already have $200,000 worth of liquidity and presence in two markets. We won’t stop here.

Below we provide a detailed description of each reason mentioned above, as well as more reasons for our decision. We believe that the list above alone sufficiently justifies this decision, but we invite you to read the more detailed reasoning behind each point.

As said before, we've hereby doubled OSEA liquidity and have entered zkSync - a new vibrant market that is the most important chain for the Omnisea Community. Read more about it in our dedicated article.

• We have created a new Ecosystem Fund with a 50-year linear (monthly) vesting and a 2-year cliff. As much as 50% of the total supply was frozen for many years. 5% of the Ecosystem Fund is unlocked.

• We have frozen for an additional year 5% of Team tokens that should have been already unlocked. This means that only 5% is not locked and owned by the Team.

• 20% of all OSEA allocated towards Liquidity (DEXes, CEXes, etc.) is now locked for 5 years with a linear (monthly) vesting. The remaining and unlocked 10% of the Liquidity Fund is and will be further spent for the DEX Pools and CEXes in the right market conditions.

• This means that 20% of the total supply is unlocked, and the remaining part will be locked for many years, without creating selling pressure or strong, sudden token emissions. The largest part is 50% belonging to the Ecosystem Fund, locked for a total of 52 years. Currently, no one outside the Holders, Omnisea Team, lock contracts, and Pools on DEXes have OSEA, so the sales pressure is very limited.

• The above means, above all, a significant organization of the Holders’ pie chart, progressive decentralization of the ownership structure, and getting rid of hundreds of millions of OSEA from circulation, which would in no way be used to such an extent in the coming years and would raise concerns for new investors or institutions and organizations such as reputable centralized exchanges.

As mentioned above, our core and main initial reason for migrating OSEA to OMS was the release of a new official LayerZero standard for Omnichain Fungible Tokens - OFTv2. This standard allows such tokens to be transferred between EVM and non-EVM chains. Seeing OFT features as one of the biggest competitive advantages for OSEA, we wanted to keep it up to date with the latest cross-chain technology stack.

Now, after further research, it has become clear to us that we can implement our ProxyOFTv2 to make OSEA bridgeable between EVM and non-EVM blockchains. All without deploying a new token and creating unnecessary risk for the Holders and our Onchain history.

Moreover, the dominance of EVM-compatible chains has only increased over the past year. This means that the possibility of bridging the token to another type of network has become a secondary value and should not be the core of the decision about such a huge and risky undertaking as migrating to the new ERC-20 contract.

The last six months have been very positive for OSEA. During this time, between bottom and ATH, the OSEA price increased 27x, reaching around $1 million in daily volume at its peak. During this time, we managed to significantly increase the liquidity of the PancakeSwap Pool on the BNB Chain, reaching over $100,000 in value on the OSEA/BUSD pair. If one of the reasons for creating OMS was to solve the liquidity problem at that time, it became clear that we were able to deal with this problem also with OSEA, without a new token and even without a dedicated LGE program.

Trading, as well as high activity in OSEA bridging, means that we now have tens of thousands of Holders on 10 chains (+ now zkSync as the eleventh chain) with several hundred thousand transactions. The undoubted harm in itself in the Web3 world is depriving the token of this achievement and starting from scratch. This is also important for potential investors and long-term Holders - this Onchain history has a positive impact on our rating from third-party services. At the time of writing this announcement, DEXTools.io rates us 91/99 and PancakeSwap rates our token risk as "Low". When creating a new token, we would have to take into account the need to build this status from scratch.

As indicated above, OSEA/BUSD LP Tokens on the BNB Chain are frozen for years. This means it is impossible to extract and use existing liquidity for OMS. The result of this would be the possibility of creating only one OMS Pool and achieving approximately 60% of the liquidity value that OSEA now has thanks to two Pools - on BNB Chain and the new one on zkSync (both on PancakeSwap).

As mentioned above, OMS was intended, among other things, to solve the liquidity problem at that time, but in the current circumstances, it would only harm us in this respect.

At this point there is no doubt that this decision is, to say at least, dictated only by the best interest of all Holders and the token itself. But truth be told, there are more reasons that we took into account when deciding to keep OSEA as the official Omnisea token. Here are some of them:

• Migrating ERC20 to a new token is always a massive and risky Onchain operation. Taking risks solely for the sake of not making a difficult decision would be an undue risk to the Holders, even with our full confidence that the migration would be successful.

• The history of many migrated tokens indicates that it creates a feeling of lack of clarity on the part of new investors who need to understand the reason for the migration before investing. This has a negative impact on the activity of the new token.

• The risk of purchasing an old token by unaware investors. This is especially dangerous in our case due to the inability to remove the liquidity due to the lock.

• Displaying the old token and Pool on Onchain information aggregators such as CoinMarketCap, Coingecko, DEXTools, etc.

Recently, taking into account the enormity of the token migration undertaking and the best interest of the Holders, we decided to once again analyze all the reasons for and against the migration of OSEA to OMS. Due to the reasons described below, we would like to inform you that the migration has been canceled. We will implement all its advantages and promised actions, but directly to OSEA.

The migration was announced many months ago, and since then Omnisea has come a long way forward at every level. Today, as will be presented in detail in this article, we realize that the migration would result in many negative consequences and all the aspects that it was supposed to improve we can absolutely implement without migration, within the existing OSEA token. We believe that the changes stated below are extremely beneficial and will constitute a new strength of the token.

1. We have created a new $100,000 OSEA/ETH Pool on zkSync - Doubling OSEA liquidity and entering a new unique market.

2. The tokenomics promised for OMS is already implemented for OSEA - 50% supply locked with a 50-year vesting and 2-year cliff. Significant decentralization of the token, the next Team unlock has been extended for an additional year, and all unlocked funds are held in Multisig wallets (by Safe).

3. OSEA will have all OFTv2 capabilities by using the official LayerZero ProxyOFTv2 standard - migration to the new token is not needed to achieve compatibility with non-EVM chains. This feature was initially the main reason for introducing OMS. Today, EVM networks have only deepened their dominance, and we still found a way to do this without migration, directly for OSEA.

4. Preserving existing token’s Onchain history.

5. OSEA on two Pools - a significant part of OSEA's liquidity has been frozen for years and we could not use it for OMS that would be available only on one DEX (one Pool). By staying with OSEA, we already have $200,000 worth of liquidity and presence in two markets. We won’t stop here.

Below we provide a detailed description of each reason mentioned above, as well as more reasons for our decision. We believe that the list above alone sufficiently justifies this decision, but we invite you to read the more detailed reasoning behind each point.

As said before, we've hereby doubled OSEA liquidity and have entered zkSync - a new vibrant market that is the most important chain for the Omnisea Community. Read more about it in our dedicated article.

• We have created a new Ecosystem Fund with a 50-year linear (monthly) vesting and a 2-year cliff. As much as 50% of the total supply was frozen for many years. 5% of the Ecosystem Fund is unlocked.

• We have frozen for an additional year 5% of Team tokens that should have been already unlocked. This means that only 5% is not locked and owned by the Team.

• 20% of all OSEA allocated towards Liquidity (DEXes, CEXes, etc.) is now locked for 5 years with a linear (monthly) vesting. The remaining and unlocked 10% of the Liquidity Fund is and will be further spent for the DEX Pools and CEXes in the right market conditions.

• This means that 20% of the total supply is unlocked, and the remaining part will be locked for many years, without creating selling pressure or strong, sudden token emissions. The largest part is 50% belonging to the Ecosystem Fund, locked for a total of 52 years. Currently, no one outside the Holders, Omnisea Team, lock contracts, and Pools on DEXes have OSEA, so the sales pressure is very limited.

• The above means, above all, a significant organization of the Holders’ pie chart, progressive decentralization of the ownership structure, and getting rid of hundreds of millions of OSEA from circulation, which would in no way be used to such an extent in the coming years and would raise concerns for new investors or institutions and organizations such as reputable centralized exchanges.

As mentioned above, our core and main initial reason for migrating OSEA to OMS was the release of a new official LayerZero standard for Omnichain Fungible Tokens - OFTv2. This standard allows such tokens to be transferred between EVM and non-EVM chains. Seeing OFT features as one of the biggest competitive advantages for OSEA, we wanted to keep it up to date with the latest cross-chain technology stack.

Now, after further research, it has become clear to us that we can implement our ProxyOFTv2 to make OSEA bridgeable between EVM and non-EVM blockchains. All without deploying a new token and creating unnecessary risk for the Holders and our Onchain history.

Moreover, the dominance of EVM-compatible chains has only increased over the past year. This means that the possibility of bridging the token to another type of network has become a secondary value and should not be the core of the decision about such a huge and risky undertaking as migrating to the new ERC-20 contract.

The last six months have been very positive for OSEA. During this time, between bottom and ATH, the OSEA price increased 27x, reaching around $1 million in daily volume at its peak. During this time, we managed to significantly increase the liquidity of the PancakeSwap Pool on the BNB Chain, reaching over $100,000 in value on the OSEA/BUSD pair. If one of the reasons for creating OMS was to solve the liquidity problem at that time, it became clear that we were able to deal with this problem also with OSEA, without a new token and even without a dedicated LGE program.

Trading, as well as high activity in OSEA bridging, means that we now have tens of thousands of Holders on 10 chains (+ now zkSync as the eleventh chain) with several hundred thousand transactions. The undoubted harm in itself in the Web3 world is depriving the token of this achievement and starting from scratch. This is also important for potential investors and long-term Holders - this Onchain history has a positive impact on our rating from third-party services. At the time of writing this announcement, DEXTools.io rates us 91/99 and PancakeSwap rates our token risk as "Low". When creating a new token, we would have to take into account the need to build this status from scratch.

As indicated above, OSEA/BUSD LP Tokens on the BNB Chain are frozen for years. This means it is impossible to extract and use existing liquidity for OMS. The result of this would be the possibility of creating only one OMS Pool and achieving approximately 60% of the liquidity value that OSEA now has thanks to two Pools - on BNB Chain and the new one on zkSync (both on PancakeSwap).

As mentioned above, OMS was intended, among other things, to solve the liquidity problem at that time, but in the current circumstances, it would only harm us in this respect.

At this point there is no doubt that this decision is, to say at least, dictated only by the best interest of all Holders and the token itself. But truth be told, there are more reasons that we took into account when deciding to keep OSEA as the official Omnisea token. Here are some of them:

• Migrating ERC20 to a new token is always a massive and risky Onchain operation. Taking risks solely for the sake of not making a difficult decision would be an undue risk to the Holders, even with our full confidence that the migration would be successful.

• The history of many migrated tokens indicates that it creates a feeling of lack of clarity on the part of new investors who need to understand the reason for the migration before investing. This has a negative impact on the activity of the new token.

• The risk of purchasing an old token by unaware investors. This is especially dangerous in our case due to the inability to remove the liquidity due to the lock.

• Displaying the old token and Pool on Onchain information aggregators such as CoinMarketCap, Coingecko, DEXTools, etc.