Current practical MRWK liquidity/off-ramp path?

[s0584273828-ctrl]

Hi @artylobos @MolhamHamwi @bitdamii @TerryFYL.

I am holding MRWK in a linked wallet and checking the practical liquidity path. The public docs clearly cover GitHub balance -> linked mrwk1 wallet claims and wallet-to-wallet transfers, but I did not find a public BTC/USDC/fiat bridge or off-ramp.

Since the public ledger shows you have claimed MRWK to wallets before, do you know whether there is any current community OTC/off-ramp path for MRWK, or are wallet-to-wallet transfers the only practical option right now?

No price claim or investment claim from my side. I am just trying to understand the process people actually use today.

[ramimbo]

Thanks for asking clearly.

Right now, the official practical path is native MergeWork ledger usage: accepted work is paid to a linked mrwk1 wallet when available, older github:* balances can be claimed into a linked wallet, and registered wallets can send MRWK to each other with signed wallet-to-wallet transfers.

There is not currently an official public BTC/USDC/fiat bridge or project-run off-ramp that I can point people to. I also do not want to make price, liquidity, investment, or payout claims.

The ledger was built with future public snapshots, bridges, and onchain-claim experiments in mind, but the actual design needs a separate maintainer/contributor discussion before implementation. That discussion should cover snapshot rules, eligibility, security, operational responsibility, legal/compliance questions, and how to keep the ledger/proof model auditable.

[ramimbo]

I opened a small docs bounty to make this clearer in the public project docs: #395

It is reserved on MergeWork as bounty 61: https://mrwk.ltclab.site/bounties/61

The scope is to document the current supported transfer paths, state that there is no project-run public BTC/USDC/fiat bridge or off-ramp today, and keep future bridge/onchain-claim work framed as requiring separate maintainer/contributor discussion before implementation.