# Proposal This proposal extends TIP-52 to grant TreasureDAO contributors until the end of Q3 to manage liquidity positions on the behalf of the DAO. This proposal does not authorize contributors to reassign tokens from liquidity provision to the ecosystem fund, for example. Instead it grants flexibility to contributors to balance cross-chain positions and facilitate the move to Abstract. All existing funds used for MAGIC liquidity will be reassigned to positions as needed to complete the move to Abstract. # Implementation TIP-52 granted contributors the ability to move liquidity positions between chains to help the community transition to a new home after the Treasure Chain shutdown. TIP-52 is available here: https://forum.treasure.lol/t/tip-52-temporary-authority-for-pol-management-and-chain-wind-down/155 The tentative plan is that after the passage of this proposal, the contributors will move the existing LP position on Uniswap v3 L1 for MAGIC-ETH to the Abstract blockchain. The current LP position value: 3.62 million MAGIC and <0.001 WETH. https://app.uniswap.org/positions/v3/ethereum/875695 At this time, the MAGIC token will only have liquidity on the Abstract blockchain. Again, the contributors will reuse all existing tokens held in moved liquidity positions rather than assign these tokens to new allocations, such as the ecosystem fund. # Rationale Treasure plans to put down roots on the Abstract blockchain due to its adoption and ideological alignment to Treasure as an IP-heavy, consumer-focused blockchain. Currently, Treasure developers are building out cross-chain swap integrations for our dapps to facilitate partnerships on other chains. It will then be unnecessary to have liquidity on multiple chains. Users can perform a cross-chain swap for MAGIC on their home chain to initiate and maintain agents then use the same service in reverse to trade MAGIC back into a token of their choice on their home chain. Note: feedback from some community members regarding TIP-55 (removal of linear unlock on the ecosystem fund) was that the voting period was too short and that the proposal lacked specific numbers on how many tokens would be impacted. These parts of the proposal were an oversight by contributors when drafting the proposal. Although the vote was unanimous and passed quorum by 300%, we agree with this feedback and will be re-submitting TIP-56 for another vote with a five-day voting period and with precise figures on how many tokens are impacted. TIP-57 is being simultaneously submitted for debate to expedite the post-chain transition. Therefore, TIP-56 and TIP-57 will have overlapping voting periods.