Yes, that’s correct, but note that the value of the shares might not match what currently appears as “Shares Value” in the Explorer UI. That value uses the current bonding curve price of shares, which would vary as individual curators mint or burn signal. Whereas the deprecation makes the full amount of signal be converted to GRT at once.
I know a complicated answer, but curious if keeping the bonding curve and migrating subgraphs from V1 to V2 was an option? Possibly utilizing flat bonding curve only on newly published subgraphs in the V2 environment. Depreciating the subgraphs prior to move is detrimental to the value and also not rewarding those who helped bootstrap curation. I know many parts to consider when making a decision and hard to please all parties.
It’s a fair question @PaulieB. To be clear, the GIP I posted (GIP-0046) for the migration helpers is still at Draft status- if there are any competing proposals there’s still time to present them and eventually the Council will choose a path forward.
That being said, I think keeping the L1 bonding curve for migrated subgraphs wouldn’t really work: subgraph owners can always deprecate the subgraph manually (they’ve always been able to do that) and create a new one with the new curve. And if flat curves are healthier and overall better, as I expect they would be, they have all the incentive to do it.
(Besides that, keeping two bonding curves in parallel will make the code more complex, make things harder to understand for all participants, and blocks future updates to curation that may rely on a flat curve to have an upgrade path)
imo deprecating a subgraph still rewards early curators: they will have more shares for every GRT they deposited. It just doesn’t reward being the first to exit after deprecation and makes it fairer for everyone to withdraw at their own pace.