PIP03 - Development roadmap

Excellent news, I would say lets go for ITO, then bridges, others are more nice to have, but ITO and bridges would make a more functional and attractive DEX.

Once again congrats and thanks for taking this kind of initiative.

2 Likes

just do it,as soon as possble

2 Likes

All the initial proposals you mentioned sound great.

I’d like to suggest another for future consideration: multiple opportunities for providing liquidity. I’d love to see a path for traditional LP, but also single sided liquidity with reduction or elimination of impermanent loss (such as bancor allows if you provide liquidity with them for 100+ days). I’m not sure if the bancor model would be the best, but it would be great to have a few options to provide liquidity (and options to lower or eliminate IL over time).

4 Likes

Great stuff!

How would Orderbooks look different than Velox? I thought it was already going to use Pangolin, if I am not mistaken.

Very good.
I’d like you to consider that two weeks might be too long for some proposals and that there should be a minimum of two days (preferably 3 -5) for the snapshot voting.
We need long enough for discussion and debate but things also need to progress.
Good work putting this together.

4 Likes

Yeah Impermanent Loss is something I’ve been thinking about a lot. I like a pathway for traditional LP’s. I think to allow an on ramp for TradFi, you have to have the ability for Fiat to come into the DEX.

3 Likes

I’m not sure how Velox implements their trading bots in the background. Don’t believe the code is open source so I couldn’t tell you their implementation details. The Order book proposed by Benny is using an on chain approach so that there is a FIFO queue which determines when the price is reached.

1 Like

Thanks mate. I agree things need to progress and I have a healthy distrust bureaucracy.

Having said that, development takes time. Having a decent window for discussion and decision will allow the devs to focus on their work without constant distractions. It also seems fair to allow people that may be online that often or due to unforeseen circumstances an ability to still engage.

2 Likes

Just another thing to take note of here in regards to the cross chain bridge. If we were to build this we’d need to ensure that the Huobi Eco and BSC bridge was secured with trusted relayers.

One of the discussions happening at the moment, is the possibility of Pangolin becoming one of those trusted relayers. In this model the relayers would need to be economically rewarded for being relayers. It would make sense to use the Swap fees to pay the relayers.

If we had to look at an example of how this might work in practice. I find a BSC token that I want to purchase that doesn’t have any liquidity on Pangolin. Let’s use $CAKE as an example. So instead of switching my Metamask wallet to BSC and then logging onto PancakeSwap to purchase $CAKE, I log onto Pangolin, select a cross chain trade, I then get a quote on the bridge fee and the swap fee. I agree to the fees and make the Swap. I get the $CAKE in my Avalanche Metamask wallet and the fees paid are used to pay the relayers.

One thing to note, the swap fees on the Pancake side of the exchange will still go to PancakeSwap LPs. So for this model to work, the end user would need to pay two Swap fees. The Pangolin Swap fees will be used to pay the Relayers who run the bridge.

If Pangolin was one of the 5 relayers, then the swap fee would be distributed equally to all bridge relayers and Pangolin would receive 1/5th of the total swap fees.

3 Likes

What about Pango’s own ETH bridge? From users perspective it would be much easier
to have a bridge right here then go through AEB and bridge fees can help build future
projects?

To be honest, I like all the proposals. The order book is a great idea, I really like it. The bridge incorporated into Pangolin would be awesome and also the idea of Pangolin becoming a relayer is pretty good.

The beta site, the compound Autonomous Proposals and especially the ITO are all good ideas. I support all of them. Great work, this is the kind of community that we need.

3 Likes

Pangolin doesn’t have a bridge. So Avalanche has a bridge to Ethereum we can utilise. We can link to it in our front end so the user doesn’t actually know they’re using AEB in the background. But thats only to Ethereum.

Bridges are expensive and you need a minimum of 5 relayers. So we’d have to dig into the treasury for this if we wanted a bridge to BSC and Huobi

3 Likes

Also important to note is that Chainsafe Chainbridge also supports Polygon, Polkadot and Kusama

2 Likes

Good stuff there.
I particularly like the ITO mechanism. I think it’s very good to convert part of the sale to permanent liquidity in a new token.

2 Likes

great! Im in
an 5k+png holders :’(

Great Ideas droped. I fully support the effort.
We need to keep in mind that the other competitors arent sleeping and
we need to be fast and show them the power of our raising community. #PANGO

2 Likes

Good ideas. Would be good to come out with different LP incentives like Sushi does for example with Onsen. Avalanche is still young but we need to start collabs with the new projects. Also 2 weeks is so long that it feels like a corporate in the real world. I think 1 week or 10 days is the maximum otherwise it’s loosing the drive. Maybe the best thing to do first is hire top devs.

Btw if you want to get inspired, you should go check Badger and their forum and community, pretty impresive how they deal with things.

1 Like

Great news. I’d say firstly bridge then ito👍🏻 Then orhers🤝

Great! A fiat on ramp would be great. I know this is coming for other projects and is necessary to truly meet the masses and grow in the future.

On a separate topic- Regarding IL- it would be nice to have a few options of maybe less rewards but lower risk of IL. Not sure how that would work, but it would really separate pangolin from existing solutions.