IFO on Pangolin?

In Github I saw https://github.com/pangolin-community/initial-farm-offering - so I understand that Pangolin DEV working on IFO? Have we some date of release?

1 Like

Yeah I think it’s a great concept. I’m involved in the Pangolin community project.

I’m busy working on the UI first and then once I’ve got some wireframes mocked I’ll release them to the community for feedback.

Then once everyone’s happy we can hopefully start deploying the contracts.

If you’d like to beta test let me know?

1 Like

really i can help. Write me to the list :slight_smile:

1 Like

And I am web developer (php), if pangolin need


Hit me up in the Discord chat. I’m HariSeldon.

Love all the help :heart:


The biggest blocker I can think of to implement this feature will convincing the community to burn PNG.

Technically it looks fairly standard, but the burning could cause a bit of backlash

1 Like

I wrote you, but I am not sure, if I wrote to correct person. check your discord :slight_smile:

Here’s a first very rough screenshot of what we’ve been working on for this feature.

The one thing that’s become apparent is that there may be considerable backlash from the community if we implement this similarly to how Pancake Swap did theres.

Pancake Swap burns the CAKE tokens after the IFO. My proposal is that we don’t burn the PNG, but rather we allow the PNG-AVAX pool to partake in the IFO’s. After the IFO ends all money raise through that pool, will then be used to create two new Liquidity pools with the new $TOKEN.

This provides the benefit of Liquidity for the new token and means we don’t have to burn PNG.

The negative I see of this is that founders could dump their tokens.

This will mean we’d need to go through some form of vetting process for all new projects launching on Pangolin.

What does everything think? Very interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts!


I dont understand, why is wrong burn tokens? I am on Pancake, and for me is not this interesting. Do you mean, that new project hate burning, or end user?

GUI look good, UX for me is OK, very simple for users.

1 Like

Since the PNG token contract is held by Ava labs at this stage there would be no way for us to allow burning until governance kicks in.

There’s also no guarantee that the community would vote to burn tokens as part of the IFO. So we need to think of alternatives if burning isn’t allowed.

I have a few ideas in this space and think we can still achieve an IFO, but one that’s slightly different to the way Pancake swap does it

Ok. I understand. I will think about it. hariseldon2 - what you think create for this discord room? for faster communicate

Just bring it up in the Dev channel on Pangolin discord. I’ve started talking about it on Discord so the more people that get involved and offer ideas the better!

I am in discord :slight_smile:

we definitely need potential ICOs made on the avalanche chain and making a public sale on the pangolin.

1 Like

This is what I’ve been thinking of:

At first I thought I’d just implement it similarly to how Pancakeswap does theirs. So Pancakeswap does it by taking a pool, let’s say PNG and AVAX and then lets people deposit their PGL into an IFO and then based upon how much money is in the PGL at the end of the IFO they burn the PNG, and then give the AVAX to the team behind the new token and then distribute the new token to the people that participated in the IFO.

Now I don’t believe we’ll be able to do any PNG burns for quite some time, so I was thinking that we could still do an IFO and also allow the creation of liquidity for the new token.

So for example $token wants to launch on Pangolin. The team decides the token is worth 0.10cents USD and they’d like to provide 500,000 $token for presales and 500,000 for liquidity to the PNG $token pool.

So anyone can then participate. Let’s say they get the total value of 100,000 USD. Then at the end of the IFO 500,000 $token gets distributed to the people that engaged in the IFO, the 50,000 USD worth of PNG gets added to a liquidity pool with the 500,000 $token and then the 50,000 AVAX gets given to the team behind the $token.

The benefit I see of this approach is that it creates demand for PNG by making it the defacto swapping token for new tokens coming onto the market. It also allows new projects to raise funds and to gain liquidity at the same time.

Negative of this approach is that there’s no rewards for keeping the Liquidity, so might need to think about whether we can add $token rewards for LP providers of the new token

1 Like

Perhaps we can then say that if you want to purchase the IFO then you have to lock in liquidity for a specific time.

So let’s talk about the distribution of $token. Everyone puts up $100,000 USD in an AVAX PNG pair to partake. So we get $50,000 USD in $token and then the new pool of PNG $token will have $50,000 USD $token and then $50,000 USD of PNG.

The team behind $token get 50,000 USD worth of AVAX while the people that partook in the IFO get 50,000 USD worth of $token.

The team behind $token and the participants of the IFO gain ownership of a $100,000 USD Liquidity Pool of $token PNG. They share this 50/50.

This seems like a good deal for everyone and ensuring that all parties are vested in the success of the IFO. Only issue is what happens if the participants of the IFO get greedy and dump their stake in the Liquidity Pool. We can’t have any pump and dumps.

So we create a vesting schedule that only allows withdrawing after a set time.

Benefit of locking in this Liquidity Pool is that, in theory, everyone swapping on that pool will only be interested in the new token. If we look at the formula for pools X * y = K. That means that if purchasing only one side, say $token, it gets progressively more expensive. More expensive $token means everyone involved profits more.

This means that if we have a fixed pool, the potential for $tokens value to appreciate considerably is highly increased by this structure.

I think logically that works but I’d be very interested to hear about any holes in my logic or if I’m missing anything.

Looks good. But I dont see that hodlers of PNG can get prio for IFO - so is normal, that if you hold some native token you have better chance to win IFO entry. For example DAO , or new project Wault - you have to hold some native token to be in IFO investor.

1 Like

Posted my thoughts in Medium Pangolin ITO (Initial Token Offering) | by hariseldon | Mar, 2021 | Medium

Think we should call it ITO, since IFO implies there is a farming opportunity, when in reality there isn’t.

I’m busy mocking up the prototype for this and then I’ll start the dev.