The aftermath of the @NileExchange migration to @etherexfi is that ultimately $NILE holders got a bit screwed and the big winner is @Consensys and the team behind the two dexes.
If you held liquid $NILE prior to the migration, you had a share of a $23M fully diluted valuation of a promising growing DEX.
After the migration to $REX and supposing you still wanted to be liquid as before, your share is now divided by 8. This is because of the dilution with the new tokenomics (25% for Nile holders) + the 50% fees it you want to unlock your $xREX.
So you now have a divided by 8 share of a currently $132M valuation token. Which is equivalent to having the same share as before at a $16.5M FDV. Less than before.
If you were already locked, then you didn't loose the liquid state and don't need to unlock to be as before, then you end up a bit better, like having the same share of a $33M fdv token.
Consensys got the best of it, having invested in $NILE before and thus receiving both their migrated token + the new 25% supply allocation.
But of course, this migration brought a ton of liquidity to the new DEX (read more TVL), and cemented @etherexfi as the main liquidity hub of @LineaBuild. So if that increase in liquidity is sticky, there is an argument that the current high valuation is more justified than before the migration.
IMO it would have been fairer if $NILE holders had experienced less dilution. Nile holders were betting on the liquidity hub of Linea also based on Consensys' investment and future growth. Consensys leveraged its position (and value add) well in this setup, and extracted a great deal for them. But a bit at the expense of previous $NILE holders.
