Different chains must serve different purposes. Otherwise there is no point in splitting liquidity.
BSC i.e. Binance is at odds with Hopr in my opinion philosophy due to the lack of decentralization. Just look at the number of validators for example. For this reason I have not considered it.
Ethereum chain is mainstream and will remain so.
The Ethereum fee issue will be resolved by the end of the year probably thanks to upcoming updates.
Allocation 1: 40% HOPR/USDT on Ethereum
This is the store of value. Ethereum is safe, mainstream and and it could be the place for long-term investors who have no intention of running nodes. I prefer USDT because I feel it safer and more stable than XDAI but I understand that this choice is also problematic.
Allocation 2: 40% HOPR/RAY on Solana via Raydium
This is the racehorse in intentions. Very low fees on Solana Network, one of the fastest growing chain and ecosystem; they have Raydium, Serum, Bonfida as DEX and and almost all projects on Solana are listed on FTX. Raydium has Trading Swap Liquidity, Pools, Farms,Fusion, Staking functions.
Allocation 3: 20% HOPR/XDAI on XDAI via Honeyswap
This is for HOPRaptors like like each of us. Hopr node running on XDAI chain so it seems to me to make good sense to provide easy access liquidity to all those who activate their node, as stated by @monadnoc and @iicc
How do you propose to implement pools with usdt and ray? At what price, where and for what to buy these coins? Now the pool on uni consists only of dai and hopr. If you can still imagine exchanging dai for usdt, how to implement a pool with ray is not clear. I think you still need to finalize your proposal.
Hi @Judge. Thanks for the proposal. I’ve marked it as incomplete for now. As @Aleks says, there are some implementation questions.
I don’t want these proposals to get TOO detailed. In general I think it’s fine for the HOPR Association to make some decisions when transferring tokens (e.g., waiting until gas prices are favourable / other cost reduction methods).
But when it comes to bridging to other chains and creating new / wrapped versions of HOPR, I think we need more information.
I’m going to reach out to the team to try to get some clearer instructions on what we’ll need to know in these cases.
Solana is for sure promising but I don’t see any bridge with xDAI?
That’s where we run our nodes…
If people buy cheap on Solana and have to use a bridge to send their tokens to ETH Mainnet, and then another expensive bridge to xDAI, it is going to cost them so much than they won’t do it… And then at worst the Solana’s liquidity will be useless and at best Solana users will use HOPR only as a speculative asset - which is not the goal.
Thanks for the contributions; I think this proposal has the same degree of genericity as most of the others which is why I do not think it is relevant at this stage to discuss prices, DCA etc. There is certainly a question of implementation in the transition to the Solana chain. The fact that the presence on Solana chain can be exclusively for the purpose of visibility, presence on exchanges and speculative is deliberate; as I said the presence on each chain in my opinion must be justified by a different purpose and these different purposes justify the costs of transition from one to the other, a problem also present in many of the other suggested solutions. Instead, I am considering, reading the other topics, if it is not the case of splitting 40% of HOPR / RAY into 20% HOPR / USDC (on Solana) and 20% of HOPR / RAY to rebalance the risk.
Thanks @thewanderingeditor@Aleks@nicobao for reading!
Reguarding my proposal I’ve reconsidered the weight of Ray/HOPR; to reduce the risk, I rebalanced 40% HOPR/RAY into 20% HOPR/RAY and additional 20% HOPR/DAI to the initial 20%.
I don’t know if you can change the thread title in any way.
I summarize it below in the new formulation:
Premises ( very personal, I know )
Different chains must serve different purposes. Otherwise there is no point in splitting liquidity.
BSC i.e. Binance is at odds with Hopr in my opinion philosophy due to the lack of decentralization. Just look at the number of validators for example. For this reason I have not considered it.
Ethereum chain is mainstream and will remain so.
The Ethereum fee issue will be resolved by the end of the year probably thanks to upcoming updates.
Allocation 1: 40% HOPR/USDT on Ethereum
This is the store of value. Ethereum is safe, mainstream and and it could be the place for long-term investors who have no intention of running nodes. I prefer USDT because I feel it safer and more stable than XDAI but I understand that this choice is also problematic.
Allocation 2: 20% HOPR/RAY on Solana via Raydium
This is the racehorse in intentions. Very low fees on Solana Network, one of the fastest growing chain and ecosystem; they have Raydium, Serum, Bonfida as DEX and and almost all projects on Solana are listed on FTX. Raydium has Trading Swap Liquidity, Pools, Farms,Fusion, Staking functions.
Allocation 3: 40% HOPR/XDAI on XDAI via Honeyswap
This is for HOPRaptors like like each of us. Hopr node running on XDAI chain so it seems to me to make good sense to provide easy access liquidity to all those who activate their node, as stated by @monadnoc and @iicc
Hi. I’m afraid our research into Solana has shown that it’s not currently secure or safe enough for the DAO to move liquidity there. We reached out to the Solana team with our requirements and they confirmed it wasn’t currently possible without us basically building a multi-sig interface ourselves in Rust, which really isn’t feasible (or safe). Hopefully they’ll implement support soon and we can revisit their chain at a later date.
Thanks to you and the team for exploring the possibility; it is obviously an immature solution to be safety implemented. I obviously hope things can change in the future. For the moment I have channeled my support to another proposal from @meowmeow although frankly the use of BSC does not excite me.
