TFT: What do you think should be the listing path for the TFT?

Screen Shot 2022-03-03 at 9.10.43 PM

The ThreeFold Token is the medium of exchange on the ThreeFold Grid and by design a utility token for anyone to access decentralized Internet resources without any intermediaries. TFT is a token of value and a token with purpose – a token for digital empowerment.

In the two months since our initial announcements of ThreeFold becoming a DAO along with our supporting validator program, we have experienced more trading volume for TFT than in the past year. This is all extremely promising, but we are not there yet.

We have some decisions to make around the path for TFT and we look to the community for your thoughts and feedback. We are all in this together!

Some background

Most of our volumes today are taking place on PancakeSwap, a decentralized exchange for tokens on Binance Smart Chain. TFT is also listed on Liquid, a global centralized exchange mainly popular in the Asian market.

Recently, the widely-popular FTX acquired Liquid Exchange. We spoke to Liquid on potential next steps, and they told us that within six months, FTX will acquire their full Japanese portfolio. This has two outcomes:

  • We get adopted into the FTX Exchange (high-volume trading)
  • We are not adopted and potentially delisted (because they only decide to select a limited number of tokens)

So, we have two paths or opportunities in regards to where and how we make TFT available to the wider world. Do we put in place a centralized exchange roadmap to complement our decentralized exchanges or should we go fully decentralized and remove centralized exchanges completely from the roadmap?

Centralized Exchanges

We can potentially increase TFTs presence by going onto various large exchanges. However, if we decide to continue down the centralized exchange path, we will need to ramp up the team (crypto expertise) and budget (to support the initiative). And is this aligned with who we are?

Approximate Budget (2/3 Top Tier Exchanges)

  • 2M USD over 12 months.
    • 1M in exchange listing fees
    • 750K in trading pair support.
    • 250K for the supporting team.

Pros

  • We will have access to new communities and TFT investors
  • We will have access to new geographies as well
  • We have a market maker who is willing to put 2M USD behind the TFT if we list on a larger exchange because they require a minimum of two exchanges to be active (for arbitrage reasons)…

Cons

  • It costs a lot of money for the listing(s) and a minimum budget to support the trading pair
  • We will need a team to help guide us
  • It wakes time to list (2-6 months approximately)
  • It’s also centralized (risk) and not really aligned with our long term goals

While we are listed on Liquid, we are also aware that the centralized exchange model has a lot of “old world” elements. Success on centralized markets revolves a lot on spending money, hype, and speculation. Yet they also undoubtedly present tremendous opportunities for growth and exposure.

Decentralized Exchanges

If we choose this path, the TFT will be more in line with our P2P model of transactions and the TFT utility model. We will leverage DEX’s, community-driven OTC sales, the Cosmos integration, and bridges to projects on the TF Grid.

Pros

  • A much more organic model
  • Less risk, although bridges are still centralized
  • A much more cost-effective approach
  • We can onboard strategic projects that want to support the Grid.

Cons

  • Not as liquid as centralized exchanges.
  • Not as easy to use as centralized exchanges, we will have to help with some tools
  • Internal payment for reputation models (i.e. Pancake swap farms)

This path is surely more in line with who we are and with our values, but it is a more difficult path to widespread exposure.

In Conclusion

We believe in decentralization, and we also want to do what is best for the project. Here we have laid out some of our thinking. You can also refer to past posts about the topic to get a bit more informed:

So, what do you think? Let us know in the comments below.

3 Likes

I think not using a centralized exchange would be shooting ourselves in the foot. If we want to succeed in establishing this decentralized project it means making our token as available to trade as possible. In this case, using centralized services is vital to the adaption of our decentralized project.

By no means am I saying we should not be available to trade on decentralized exchanges. It is vital to the ideals of the project and IMO also being available on a centralized exchange no way takes away from those ideals as long as both are outlets are available. Making the token as available as possible MAKES OUR SERVICES AS AVAILABLE AS POSSIBLE.

I’m at risk of sounding overdramatic, but I don’t want to sugar coat it. Forgoing a centralized exchange could make this project dead in the water. When and how to go about a centralized listing is above my expertise however.

8 Likes

A centralized exchange is an essential need for a token to survive. If we don’t get on a centralized exchange the value of threefold will not rise, since we are not captivating new users to join threefold and its awesome community. A decentralized exchange is great but it doesn’t have the appeal of a centralized exchange where non-tech-savvy people will have a hard time using it.

4 Likes

Excellent discussion!

Is it me or there’s two main ways to get TFT into a CEX?:

1st: Brute force: you just get the money and put in the budget as @AdnanF wrote in Approximate Budget.

2nd: Slowly but surely: you just stay on DEX and wait until the project is so popular that CEX list the token themselves.


So the question would be, do we force the process or not? And if we do, when?

First, we need to be ready technology-wise. I wouldn’t force going into a CEX before Grid 3 migration is fully done and operational (on both the user and farmer sides)

If/when we can set a good marketing-communication branch of Threefold for high input demands (imagine if the TG channels doubles everyday week) while also having the farmers ready to get cultivation on Grid 3, we could get into a CEX during a strategic phase of the market and have some “news” ready to counter a dump. (e.g. announce new spots for validators, as we saw last month, prices went up with this, and it stayed static around 0.08, the price set for farming).

If we fear pump and dump, we could set phases of development that would prevent a dump. But that said… we saw the price going from 0.04 to 0.12 in some days lastly. We are thus already experiencing high volatility. Maybe it’s better to experience the volatility coming with CEX integration now than when the price of TFT is way higher? (open question).


If we fear that going into CEX is against Threefold ethos, I would argue this:

If/when Threefold succeeds in the general population, it will have much positive impacts when in comes to decentralizing the web. We are in a transition phase and many people are only on CEX. Going CEX + DEX is also part of the idea of being for the people. Not everyone masters DEX as of now. But I’m sure many people are aware that current Cloud and Web infrastructures are rigged for the Big Guys. Imagine pushing strategy ads for Threefold every time Amazon, Google, et al. get power outage? And then non-tech savvy people could buy within a few clicks the “solution” to their actual web outtage on accessible CEX. That would be a killer marketing strategy!


Counter-argument: If we let ourselves build the Grid organically and set things up properly gradually, with actual Grid uses that are accessible for the common crowd, the demands could come from the users Cloud side itself and it would push CEX to list us anyway as TFT price would rise. TFT supplies is not much liquid as there are still few farmers. TFT real world use demands will come when people can deploy Grid apps effortlessly. As there are few TFT in circulation, it would push the demand high and this would get the CEX attention.


That was a clearly-too-long comment but I didn’t have time to make it shorter :wink:

9 Likes

Going to a DEX is more inline with our goals; true. Not going on a CEX however will kill the project for sure.
DEX’s are just not mature and accessible enough for a wide audience, and however noble we want to be in our efforts, in my opinion there is no way around a CEX.
That is not to say that later on we can not transition to DEX only, but we need technical readiness & visibility first, adoption next and at that point we can transition to DEX.
Just my 2 cents…

2 Likes

In my modest oppinion CEX for the project should be (let be simbolic :slight_smile: ) about 3 things:

  1. A chance for mass marketing, to increse sound of voice, user base (farmers) and expousure
  2. To get funds, when the price goes up its natural that ppl will want to sell some tokens and the project team/fondation should do the same in order to onbord more ppl for future technical development (if we want experts in some fields we need to recruit and pay them) and to have funds to invest in project during bear markets. And current farmers will get funds to by more equipment.
  3. Geting customers, with the two points above we should get more requests for grid usage and deployment on the grid.

We cannot control pump&dump or why will ppl buy tft in the short run and that shuldn’t be an issue for the longterm in any case, as long ase the project keeps going in the right direction.

Also, the prerequirement I agree is that the grid need to be fully operational for end user, and also that you have a large number of titans on stock. The plug and earn method is a great sales point.

Long story short - CEX Yes but when the grid is ready for mass adoption and usage :slight_smile:

And sorry for all the speling errors :see_no_evil:

4 Likes

ThreeFold stands out in the crowd. If we had listed on a couple of decent cex 4 years ago, I’m convinced that TFT would have been a Star token already, at least top 100. Hence a Serious marketcap, hence no Fund Raising headaches…
Brand recognition (you can call it hype) , enthousiasm ( and yes, volatility) and volumes are not 4 letter words.
Why wait any longer? If you have the funding for it. Then you can’t loose. The sooner the better
And imho Dex is for very tech savvy insiders. Average Joes don’t ever get to buy or sell on a dex.

Its true, brand recognition is so low that I was essentially called a scammer yesterday since activity and awareness is virtually non-exsistant outside of this forum and the telegram.

Honestly I like that the token isn’t overhyped, on every single CEX out there and being picked up by pump & dump groups.

I think first rolling out to multiple DEXs would be the route to go and then thinking about CEXs. Maybe even prioritise smaller ones and get natural listing.

Forcing adoption through a CEX and hype will be good for the price short term, but will ruin the community as well (is my fear) with a flood of people purely hoping for the next MOON.

In short; prioritise the product and DEX, let CEX come or go for smaller ones without enormous listing fees

Agree 100%. I don’t think anyone here wants us to rush into a CEX. We are not ready.

I don’t agree with this at all. A CEX is important early on as it brings in new people to threefold. Pump and Dump happen on both CEX and DEX. The longer it takes for us to go on a CEX it will have a bad impact on threefold. As more company is coming out doing almost similar to what threefold is doing and if they get the recognition before threefold. Threefold will never receive the hype and popularity it deserves. Noone want it to rush to a CEX but a CEX early is very important for a company to survive.

3 Likes

After seeing how coinbase added two new coin and it had a great impact on the token. I believe we should get one major exchange like coinbase as it will grow the community and the token which will help fund the project. Once we get on one big exchange the rest of the exchange will follow and it does not want to miss out on earning fees.

I agree with every reply here that a centralized exchange is key. Look at all the trading floors and markets in the world - traders have to all be in the same place to find the right price - buyers and sellers together. Decentralizing that so that they’re all in their own silos destroys the point.

The problem with insisting on “decentralizing” everything is that it splinters attention - we see the deleterious effect of this in our community channels where the conversation is split across various separated, siloed telegram channels and we would see it if we continue to adhere to a DEX/OTC route.

For the market to see demand rising…it has to see demand rising and if the demand is splintered across multiple decentralized channels or worse, happening OTC, then the impact of those transactions on the value of the token will be nil.

If I buy a million tokens from someone OTC - no-one knows about it (beyond perhaps a blip of a mention on a telegram channel), if I go onto an exchange and bid for a million tokens, Mr Market notices and the price rises. Why is the former more inline with ThreeFold’s values? Because the OTC exchange - a private, opaque sale - is moderated by a decentralized broker and the latter is worse because even though the price is more democratic, more real, more transparent…because it’s owned by a centralized player it’s against our values - I don’t agree.

The more participants in a market, the more correct the price - and that’s the value we should be optimizing for - the true value of the token - not, absolutely not, optimizing for who happens to own or run said market - that’s far less important than the number of participants which that market attracts.

There is a hierarchy of importance in our values, surely, and the true market price of the token is more important than who runs the market that finds that price.

In short - OTC etc is actually antithetical to our values as they are more private, more opaque and they don’t help you find the real market price - ThreeFold should be about total transparency, and the most transparent way to determine a true price of an asset is not found via a series of unconnected OTC trades - but by coming to where the most market participants are bidding.

1 Like

CEX is absolutely needed, the decentralized way wont mature and win the world in 1 day or 1 year, right now we need to be “compliant” with the old ways (CEX), maybe one we can cut them out, but not today or the near future.

However, there needs to be a plan, entering CEX without a Plan can kill the token and then the project, the plan for CEX can take 1 to 2 years to achieve, for this the plan need to be made now, alongside everything that goes with it. This also gives the comunity the time to prepare knowing that in quarterX of Year Z the Listing will be pushed and everything and everyone in the project is ready for it.

1 Like

the worst decision is to be undecided.

Hi @trout2. I can tell you that there is a strategy to have additional CEX’s trading TFTs. I don’t drive this plan but @AdnanF does, @AdnanF can you shed some light on this topic?

1 Like

I like your point that CEXs will list TFT eventually once it gains enough traction. This is the truth.

Maybe late to the discussion here, but I want to point out that there are projects that climb into the top 100 mcap cryptos without ever spending a penny on exchange listings. It’s not a strict requirement to be successful in this space, although it can be a powerful strategic move for sure.

Personally I look forward to the day I never feel compelled to use a CEX again. I actually think that day is pretty close and that the UX of DEXs will catch up with the expectations of a wide user base pretty fast. Seamless cross chain DeFi aggregation is the future. Centralized exchanges are the past.

I think resources would be better spent fast tracking the Cosmos network release and integration with the broad scope of DeFi that will enable. That said there seems to be a consensus with moving forward with CEX listings, so let’s see how this goes :sunglasses:

3 Likes

This reply from @scott makes me realize I don’t know enough about this issue.

1 Like

Another way to look at the issue is the cex listing will definitely boost the token price and the foundation should sell some tokens to use for team expansion. There are a lot of developments and promises floating in the air across the forum, but the delivery and implementation is slow. As an example the marketing plan expected a token price of 0.3 usd at end of Q1. The team needs to be careful about what is communicated to the community and if something is delayed or not achieved a reasonable explanation should be provided.

Exchange listing will probably boost the token price, yes. As a fundraising mechanism, the cost of listing must be recouped before there is any net gain. I don’t know over what time period this would be possible and how much liquidity would then be available so support future token sales.

Reaching token price of .3 was stated as an “objective” for Q1, not an expectation. Yes, execution often takes longer than expected and there’s always room for improvement in communication. I can tell you that our development team is working very hard to enable fiat purchases through GetTFT right now, while other members of the team are working to realize initiatives like INCA that will help support token price.

If you’re curious about anything specific, feel free to ask for an update.