Decomission BSC bridge and pegged token [Closed]

#1

Dear community,

Today we want to ask you if you could stand behind the decision to discontinue the token on BSC and decommission the bridge. There are multiple reasons for this, the main reason is that having a token on BSC hurts the credibility of the project. We have heard a lot of people that said that our project is not “real” just because of the token on BSC. If you go to https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/threefold/ you see a contract linked to the project’s token. But actually the main token lives on Stellar and not on BSC. Some people ask why we don’t have a logo on Trustwallet and we have to keep explaining that we don’t qualify by the requirements to have a logo. All by all, having this token on BSC has hurt the project more than it actually contributed.

There is also a lot of development and effort required to keep this bridge running whilst we could move those resources to projects and development that actually brings value to the Grid. Operations wise it’s also a great effort to keep the BSC nodes in sync. Out support team is also frequently receiving tickets about unprocessed transactions (due to congestion on BSC).

There is also the aspect of whether this token on BSC actually fits in the company’s vision, BSC is centralized and controlled by a few entities that can at any time pull the plug. Also their development team is not really listening to the community, see: https://github.com/binance-chain/bsc/issues/553. So we believe Threefold does not align with the community and vision of BSC.

If the community would support this decision we will create a DAO vote for it, once this is closed we will phase out the BSC bridge. In phase 1 we would halt deposits on the bridge, people who have TFT on BSC can still swap it back to Stellar until phase 2 where we would also halt withdrawals and remove liquidity (we will give everyone enough time to move their tokens).

We can also move a lot of the liquidity on BSC to our Stellar liquidity pools, strengthening our position there. We would not lose that much since it’s very easy to swap USDC or any other currency on Stellar to TFT.

We would love to have your opinion!

The Threefold team

8 Likes
New liquidity pool on pancakeswap?
#2

Sounds like rational arguments.
Using Stellar is also very easy and accessible.

And, there are indeed more questions and issues on BSC than Stellar chain.

2 Likes
#3

Yes. Dump the BSC btridge. Not only is it crappy and centralized but it also confuses many TFT users on what network to use.

I would have gone from the very beginning with a token on Eth. an Eth L2, or MATIC, but that train is gone now I guess.

#4

The arguments sound rational, but we wanna make ThreeFold easier accessible and I’m not sure if shutting down a bridge brings us forward in that case.

One of the slogans is about building the nw internet, we need at least another major chain.
Volume on Stellar is small compared to BSC.

#5

I understand the Pros but I think the Cons are far superior. BSC is a major chain with far superior visibility than stellar. I see not having TFT on BSC as a downgrade to the project.

#6

Let’s not remove the trading pair where all of our volume and liquidity is. This is suicide.

Don’t forget XLM is somewhat of a dying ecosystem itself.

Bring on a new source of liquidity and trading pair before pulling the plug.

4 Likes
#7

I believe most of the buying pressure that caused the token price increase last week was on bsc. I think we must not make the token less accessible to the public

5 Likes
#8

Could not agree with you more. Just let the market flow…

#9

Absolutely right.
Stellar isn’t among the most popular chains and we aren’t on any CEX.
If we really wNna move away from BSC we need other bridges or a CEX first.

#10

Reasonable arguments. My proposal would first to add some even more popular chain/dex with bigger liquity comparing to BSC and then only consider phasing BSC out. Other people mentioning here that currently biggest part of liquidity happening on BSC is a very important aspect. It would not be rational to hurt trading ecosystem either if we have some other options. In case phasing out BSC combined with integration with some better chain it would have better effect on community and traders than just turning BSC

#11

Maybe just raise the bridge gas fees so it pays for your time?

2 Likes
#12

Agree with Nelson, I’m Not a fan, almost all of the interest in the past few weeks has been on bsc. Need a much more thorough plan to consider a major plan like this

#13

To be honest, I didn’t really expect this many negative reactions. The question is also, what audience do we want to attract? I don’t know of any users / projects on BSC that actually care about the values of Threefold. Most of those users are scalpers, bots and ppl who pump and dump coins. You kind of notice this when ppl in our chat ask about our token on BSC: “contract?” , “when 1 dollar”, “to the moon”, …

We know that the trading volume will go down, but it’s as easy or even easier to get started trading on the Stellar dex.

Threefold is not a traditional crypto project, that’s why we should think about our position in this whole cryptocurrency world… I also believe that a CEX would be very beneficial to the project in terms on liquidity and onramp/offramp but most of the CEX’s out there only care about money and trading fees, not about the project itself.

1 Like
#14

Another option would be is to create a token on the Ethereum network, but the problem there is that the fees for trading are quite high and bridging to Stellar would cost even more…

#15

Putting in effort to DISCOURAGE trading is going to result in the foundation going bankrupt and most people here liquidating. These annoying “wen moon” characters are the scum that will pull this project out from the sub 1 cents dumps.

1 Like
#16

In order to have a more productive discussion lets split the arguments.

  1. If the reasons are technical, like team is unable to maintain the bridge for some reason, please state those issues so we can adress them individualy.
  2. If the reason is teological, like the users of BSC dont share the same values, I would just say a bridge is just a road and in it self cant be good or bad. We aim to be as decentralised as possible and that means building bridges not burning them IMO
3 Likes
#17

Multiple technical aspects that require our attention:

For an exhaustive list: https://github.com/threefoldfoundation/tft/issues

Development for a bridge is also never finished, there are companies that are dedicated to building and maintaining bridges. And even those frequently get hacked succesfully: https://beincrypto.com/top-11-defi-cross-chain-bridge-attacks-of-2022-hackers-bag-over-2-billion/

Historical effort

Operations: run BSC nodes:

Support: troubleshooting

It’s becoming more clear for us as a company that we don’t have to knowledge / technical knowhow and manpower to build and maintain bridges. We could look to alternative solutions, existing protocols but there are no Steller based bridges at the moment.

We have been following https://pendulumchain.org/ for their effort on building a Stellar bridge to the polkadot ecosystem, we also believe they will further expand their effort to other blockchains as well.

2 Likes
#18

What about some other platform, like Uniswap on Polygon?


Do we already have some sort of integration with Polygon, is it hard to get on Uniswap Polygon instead of BSC then?

#19

The only increase we have seen in coin price in nearly a year came from purchases made on bsc. If the current solution is to hard for the team technically then there needs to be a proposal made that includes an actual plan to manage the change over without losing momentum. You don’t sell the car you drive to work because the seats uncomfortable with no plan for replacing it.

It really worries me that we we are unable to find or maintain any talent capable of managing a crypto currency bridge when that seems like that would be well within the scope of our project.

3 Likes
#20

Then this is the main issue that needs to be adressed. @weynandkuijpers a penny for your thoughts :slight_smile: