Thursday Morning Update: Solana, Avalanche, Polygon validity news

Hi everyone! Just a quick update on some of our research. As we mentioned on Tuesday, it’s essential that moving liquidity can be done safely, securely and reasonably privately. This means a reliable way to bridge tokens to a new chain, and support for our DAO security protocols, specifically a 3-in-5 multisig.

We’re still actively researching and reaching out to contacts in the projects concerned, but so far the results seem to be:

  • Solana It is possible (with questionable stability, reliability and security) to bridge tokens between ETH and Solana using their wormhole, although we’d have to host it ourselves. We can also use the web wallet, but that’s a risky option given the sums of money involved.

Unfortunately, when we talked directly to the Solana team, there’s no direct support for our DAO multi-sig. We’d have to code something ourselves in Rust, which would be time consuming and draw valuable resources away from protocol development.

Even though most proposals involving Solana only want to move around 10% of liquidity there, that’s still over $1m in value. And at the moment, unfortunately, Solana just isn’t secure or reliable enough to take that kind of risk.

Therefore, we sadly cannot mark proposals involving Solanum as valid

Avalanche: Avalanche does have a bridge, and does appear to have multisig capability, although the code suggests we’d have a terrible (and therefore potentially risky) experience actually making any transaction.

We’ve reached out to the head of partnerships to try and get more information.

Avalanche does seem more promising than Solana though, so we’re going to keep this possibility open for now. Hopefully we’ll hear back from our contacts today.

Polygon (formerly Matic): As you may know, we have a close relationship with the Polygon team, and one of the HOPR testnets ran on Matic. Bridging is no problem, and the exchanges seem safe. Unfortunately, there is currently no support for our current multisig setup, but we’re assured that support is coming in June. Practically speaking, that’s probably the soonest we would move the liquidity anyway, given that the DAO process needs to finish and we need to run various tests and security checks.

Since we know the teams involved and are reasonably confident of the timelines, we’re happy to allow proposals which move liquidity to Polygon. However, it’s possible that the implementation of this will be delayed.

I’ll update the relevant pending proposals ASAP. Apologies again to people whose proposals are now invalid, but it’s really not safe to move so much money around without secure multisig support.

Naturally, if anyone has any direct experience which contradicts this research, please share it here ASAP so we can reconsider and potentially update the rules.


Wow,Really happy to see hopr on Polygon.

That mean my proposal is valid?

I assume you mean this one? Proposal: Quickswap -100%. HOPR on Polygon

I’m afraid yours would be an exception here. We need people who are proposing Polygon and Avalanche splits to suggest an alternative for that liquidity if we determine that those chains don’t meet our DAO security requirements.

Most people are only suggesting relatively small figures around 10% to these chains, so having a contingency plan there makes sense. Since your proposal is 100% to Polygon, that would mean you’d need to include an entirely different second proposal as part of your first one, which I’m afraid is out of scope.


I edit my proposal and add a split of funds. Please check, now it correct?

Amazing,you Dev guys really hear the voice from community!!

Polygon is a solid pick as an Ethereum alternative. Hopefully in the future we’ll have a Polkadot option as well, Hopr’s partners are building into Polkadot and this would complement the networked environment nicely.