Migrating RBW and Converting to CU Token


With the game moving to XAI, we propose the migration of the Rainbow Token (RBW) token, whose immutable contract currently resides on the Polygon network, to Crypto Unicorns (CU) tokens on the Arbitrum network. As a part of this migration RBW tokens will convert to CU tokens on a 10:1 basis.

A token migration contract will be made available from April 2024 for holders to convert any RBW tokens held. Concurrently, staked RBW (sRBW) will be migrated and converted automatically with assistance from the Vault team.


Given the immutable nature of the RBW token’s contract, it is impossible to directly transfer the token contract to Arbitrum in line with the game’s migration to XAI. If we were to allow RBW to exist in Arbitrum and XAI, the token must be bridged from Polygon, introducing an additional layer of complexity that could hinder the onboarding of new users. This migration aims to achieve the following:

  1. Strengthen the Crypto Unicorns brand identity by aligning the primary value/governance token with the overarching name of the game and its IP.
  2. Simplify the marketing of the CU token by making the association between the game and token more intuitive for both gamers and traders.
  3. Streamline the user onboarding process by eliminating the need to interact with the Polygon network entirely following the migration to XAI.


  1. Change the primary value/governance token from Rainbow Token (RBW) to Crypto Unicorns (CU) concurrently with the game’s migration to XAI.

    New Token Name: Crypto Unicorns

    New Ticker: CU

  2. Develop and deploy a smart contract on Polygon to enable the migration of RBW tokens to CU tokens on Arbitrum at a 10:1 basis. This smart contract shall utilize LayerZero’s cross chain messaging route contracts to bridge to Arbitrum after each conversion. Users will be able to interact with the smart contract via a front-end website, which we propose to be called the Rainbow Bridge. This proposal will be enacted following its approval, targeting April 2024 for the public deployment of the smart contract.

  3. Automate the migration of staked RBW to a new staking contract on Arbitrum, maintaining the 10:1 conversion ratio and existing lock-up periods. This process will be managed by the Vault team, requiring no action from stakers.

  4. Withdraw the DAO’s LP position from the Balancer 50:50 RBW/wETH pool and deposit an equivalent amount into a CU/ETH pool following the successful deployment of the new CU token contract.


Migrating to XAI represents a new beginning for both our game and our token. We anticipate that the DAO will benefit from the enhanced brand consistency this transition will foster. Potential partners, exchanges, marketing platforms, and public relations entities often rely on information from platforms like CoinMarketcap and CoinGecko to evaluate projects. The current naming of Rainbow Token does not immediately associate with the Crypto Unicorns ecosystem. We believe this strategic move will streamline the information and allow our DAO to fully leverage our brand identity. We hope that you vote in support of this proposal.

Q: What utility will CU token have?
A: The CU token will have the exact same utility as the RBW token.

Q: How will this affect the tokenomics, especially the allocations and the unlock periods?
A: The tokenomics will essentially remain the same with the only difference being that the overall supply, as well as the individual allocations under the P&E, Staking, Investors, Team, and Ecosystem will be converted at a 10:1 basis. Other than this, all unlock and vesting schedules will remain the same.

Q: Will there be separate re-mints or airdrops after migration?
A: There will be no separate re-mints or airdrops but a few leaderboard events are expected to ensure token market liquidity.

1 Like

What are the benefits to converting 10:1? Is there a strategy to it?

Getting a million coins has always been my ultimate goal for obvious reasons, it sounds cool.

1 Like

Can you lay out the reasoning for why 10:1 ratio instead of using 1:1 ratio. Won’t this just add more complexity for everyone without any rational impact on marketcap?

How will this change impact in game soft currency repricing?

How the RMP prices will impact with this change? Won’t all prices changes into fractions and make things harder for players and developers.

Are the benefits more than the added complexity?

1 Like

I am concerned about the ingame rewards/prices.

You didn’t make any 0.5 or 1.5 or what ever like this cause I think you couldn’t give a fraction of 1 RBW, so how are you gonna accord the rewards or quest loop or even jousting loop ?

Seems like you are only able to send flat value so what will happen to those quest giving 5 RBW for example ? Or for Jousting rewarding 7 RBW and so on ? Really curious on how are we gonna get impacted by this decision.

If it’s to add another nerf, big no to 10:1 ratio.
If you are able to give fractioned rewards to match our current system, then I don’t mind.

1 Like

Just a couple of quick questions. What is purpose of 10 to 1 ratio? Is there a good reason for it? Would team be open to a 1 to 1 conversion? A 10 to 1 ratio would require a complete overhaul in pricing of entire ecosystem involving every contract. From farm sim breeding and RMP to Shadocorn rituals. Doing a 1 to 1 conversion might save devs a lot of time. I have asked others their thoughts on the subject but would be curious to hear why team decided on 10 to 1. I personally would rather have more of a coin worse less. We tried have less worth more with reducing staking contract rewards. Because of it I have less and each coin is worth less. Would like to not have that happen a second time. While I understand giving RBW a fresh trading history. It is not hard to look at the old charts. One thing the old charts do have going for them is RBW used to trade at 3.00. While I dont see RBW going back to 3.00 anytime soon. I can imagine a 50x to 1.00 with everything going right with conversion and marketing. I cant seem to see the upside while arguably it is to true the values remain the same if the converted token retains the 10 to 1 value. My worries is that after hype dies down that what was .20 cent CU after conversion will go down to .02 CU. And we will lose 90% of out tokens value. I also worry that if a complete overhaul of ecosystem pricing does not happen with conversion at 10 to 1. They we will lose a % of the tokens utility value in playing the game. I do agree that converting RBW to CU to a new token can be a good thing. Just really curious why 10 to 1. I saw this happen a few weeks ago with pixel. And judging from chat I read and comments the community itself was not very happy to say it best. Many people I talked to seemed totally okay with it. So I feel this maybe a personal opinion of how it makes me feel. Curious what others think as well. Share your wisdom all. Thanks for listening.

One extra afterthought. What are the tax implications of converting a token to a new token. Will this force people to claim a loss at the start of a new tax year. In some cases for people that bought at .01 cent. Will it force them to take a profit. I am not a tax professional. Wont consider any answer to this as financial or advice on taxes. But assume this has been asked or know the answer to it considering the team and investors are large holders that will or maybe effected by this if it does count as a taxable event.


Timetraveler has very good points and questions. Would like to hear more from the team on this as well.

TT has valid points,

Something to note is previously, the DAO had proposed to move the project’s name away from the word “Crypto” and towards something that would not garner negative views attached to the term. However, we are now moving in the direction to attach the token itself to the same word that drew these concerns previously.

Is this something we all should be worried about going into the future? Will we be faced with the same concerns again about the name? What’s wrong with the current token name? Should we consider alternatives?


Timetraveler has very good points and questions

The whole token needs a fresh restart … this is a clear winner. No additional discussion is needed in my opinion. Let’s vote on this and approve it and allow for going into XAI not be a disaster, which will happen if we show up with a token with a 98% loss from issuance.

Also, the 10:1 ratio makes sense as we are nearing the fatal mark of the 0.01, which I think folks know that once you dip below a penny your token is not taken serious. So, hopefully we consolidate and go up… otherwise we are f’d in less elegant words.


Converting at 10:1 effectively reduces the total token supply since for every 10 RBW, you can get 1 CU token. By virtue of supply and demand, there is now less token supply for the same demand (this is assuming we don’t onboard anybody when we move to XAI). In general though, the current holders’ portion (or relative %) of the market supply remains the same after the migration so there’s no loss on that end.

Also, a complete token revamp makes the token easier to market. Currently, when approaching exchanges for listing, etc, all exchanges see is the ATH of 3 USD and the current price. This is all potential traders and players see as well. We need to be able to break away from that and give our token a fresh chart and a complete restart upon moving to XAI. We need to make the most out of this migration is my personal opinion.

I think this is something that will need to be discussed with our personal accountants. I have my own in my own country but I believe each country is different so you need to consult your accountant.

Edit: I meant ATH not ATL, but I typed ATL.


Resetting the chart is OK, that’s understandable.
But what about in-game rewards which others are concerned of?
Also, no one is asking questions about UNIM, yeah we all recall its a meme token, but do you plan any changes on it as well? Maybe removing it from economy at all, if we are talking about following $PIXEL narrative, which removed $BERRY from their economy at all, only keeping $PIXEL token.

1 Like

This is the best opportunity that comes along with XAI migration.
New token, new chart, old track getting deleted: we couldn’t have asked for a better restart for RBW.
Please don’t get stuck into small details, like fractions of CU (blockchain can hold up to 8 decimals) or accounting details (plenty of tokens did this without any tax issues).
Conversion on a 10:1 basis is a great idea to give the token a higher perceived value and to decouple it from the old token that is 98% down from ATH.

where do I vote? :slight_smile:


I support the migration, but the 10:1 should be reconsidered, it is a big mistake. If you want a ratio modification, then 1:10 is way better due to unit bias (“if CU gets to $1 I’m rich”). Check out recent Huobi token rebrand, Justin Sun knows how to do it right :sweat_smile:

1 Like

I am in fully support of the migration plan. Many questions still exist for me around the proposed 10:1 conversion.

I do not feel qualified enough to comment on what would be better for a new CU token regarding the conversion. I would like to hear from the team on why they believe that a 100m supply is better than a 1b supply as we have or a 10b supply as @dijkstrasrevenge has suggested. I do see the importance of a conversion. I’m just wanting to hear more thoughts around the ratio.

1 Like

Fresh chart, fully support


The 10:1 conversion is a simple way to reduce the overall supply of tokens. Thus bringing us more inline with our competitor’s total supplies. The reasoning behind 10:1 is that is a simple Order of Magnitude change. This makes the conversion math extremely simple.

Current community members need to look beyond individual token quantities and prior goals. You need to be asking yourselves what sets our project up best for success during this migration.


The reasoning is simple. I originally designed the tokenomics during the 2021 bull run when our competitors had extremely high valuations. I wanted RBW to cost less per unit vs those projects. Keep in mind I was working on the tokenomics right near the previous cycle’s ATH (Nov 2021).

The lesson learned here is that Unit Bias cuts both ways and it would be good to decrease our token’s overall supply to bring us more inline with competitive projects in the space.

Once the Migration is complete we’ll adjust prices inside the game to match the reduction in total token supply. This will be easy to do via a tuning update. Keep in mind we will also adjust bundle sizes to insure their price in CU tokens makes sense and doesn’t have a bunch of decimals.


Hi Eyolis,

Thanks for always being concerned about Token Quantity “nerfs”.

As I stated here: Migrating RBW and Converting to CU Token - #19 by darthschmitty13 we will NOT be nerfing token quantities. We’ll simply be adjusting in game rewards to insure the new CU rewards match RBW rewards. Some systems will take more work than others but the goal will be to just make the adjustments necessary to match the current system.

On a separate note. It’s my goal this year to make you care more about Token Value “nerfs” over quantity. Peeps need to focus there time and energy there and not get so caught up in quantity of tokens. We’ve distributed nearly 200M RBW tokens to our current player base over two years. What has that done to the value of those tokens? We need to be way more focused on building value into our system.


The reasoning behind 10:1 is simple.

It’s just an order of magnitude change and it makes for simpler math than say (3:1 or 5:1).

This is a token conversion so it will have a fresh chart. There’s no reason to go back and think about the old chart and what ifs around RBW’s history. The key here is exposing the largest L2 in all of crypto to the new CU token and wider Crypto Unicorns project as the game migration completes.

You should be asking yourself what new people care about. They want to see a promising token tied to a massive gaming ecosystem about to launch imminently on XAI. As someone who has been here for over 2 years at this point I understand your bias toward the current system.

I can’t speak to anyone’s personal tax implications. I can say that from LG’s perspective this is not a taxable event.