Community discussion: Should the DAO introduce a community-based decision-making process for early-stage projects to set up a pTokens bridge? If so, what should the requirements (financial, technical, growth, etc) for those projects be?

Community discussion: Should the DAO introduce a community-based decision-making process for early-stage projects to set up a pTokens bridge? If so, what should the requirements (financial, technical, growth, etc) for those projects be?

Early-stage projects apply for a pTokens bridge to be set up for their own project as they are willing to access new ecosystems and unlock new growth opportunities. It is the main development team who currently evaluates the cost-opportunity of onboarding such a project within the pNetwork ecosystem. Because early-stage projects usually don’t have a proven track-record, have limited capital availability and can only provide estimates on how they could create a benefit for the pNetwork ecosystem (i.e. Total Value Locked, cross-chain transaction volumes, etc), opening up the evaluation to DAO members on whether to onboard such projects or not would contribute to a fairer decision.

This discussion is aimed at understanding whether to introduce a transparent, community-based decision making process dedicated to the potential onboarding of early-stage projects within the pNetwork ecosystem. Should the response be positive, this discussion is further aimed at getting feedback and suggestions on the requirements (financial, technical, growth, etc) to be applied for the evaluation of such projects.

This post serves as the starting point for community discussions. Once a consensus on the proposal is reached on this board, a formal proposal will be opened on the pNetwork DAO for PNT holders and DAO stakers to vote on it.

The proposal brings forward the possibility for early-stage projects aiming to go cross-chain via pNetwork to submit an application for a pTokens bridge for their own project to be set up and run by pNetwork nodes. Following an initial evaluation from the main development team on technical feasibility, estimated workload and genuine motive, where appropriate the application would be opened for voting to the DAO.

Should this proposal be approved and the community-based decision making process introduced, DAO members would be involved in the evaluation of the cost-opportunity of setting up new pTokens bridges for early-stage projects.

For the ecosystem to experience healthy growth, it’s important to have a sustainable structure that allocates time and resources towards initiatives that are believed to bring a significant return for pNetwork.

Thanks to its flexible design, the pNetwork system is a good fit both for connecting popular blockchains and assets (i.e. Bitcoin and Ethereum) and for smaller projects willing to tackle multiple blockchain markets. This proposal focuses on introducing an onboarding process for the latter category that would leave the evaluation up to DAO members and, should the onboarding be approved, it would create an immediate economic benefit for the DAO.

This initial discussion proposes for the process be split in two phases: the initial one would require the main development team to perform an initial valuation of the project’s application on technical feasibility, estimated workload and genuine motive. Because of its flexible design, pNetwork’s infrastructure can support non-standard assets (i.e. rebase tokens) to flow across blockchains as well as a variety of different protocols. Implementation times for each of those is different, making it important for requirements to be clear before opening a DAO voting proposal. The second phase would leave it up to the pNetwork DAO to decide whether to onboard the project within the ecosystem.

This initial discussion proposes for the new proposed community-based decision-making process for onboarding early-stage projects to be articulated in four steps:

  1. The early-stage project is required to fill a form ( here: Integration request form) to highlight basic information regarding the project itself as well as its motive for going cross-chain (i.e. listing on Uniswap, project’s dApp is available on multiple networks, liquidity mining initiative on PancackeSwap, etc)
  2. The main development team performs an initial review focused on technical feasibility, estimated workload and genuine motive.
  3. Following a positive response of the previous phase,the DAO retains the power over accepting/rejecting the project application. A governance vote will be opened and DAO members would be able to express their view as usual.
  4. If accepted, the project would be asked to pay a development grant to pNetwork for enabling cross-chain functionalities to it that would be contributed to the DAO treasury. Such a grant creates an immediate benefit for the pNetwork DAO that can leverage the funds for growing its ecosystem.

This post serves as the starting point for a community discussion on the topic. Suggested points of discussion:

  • does it make sense for such a decision-making process to be made at a DAO level?
  • feedback on the four steps proposed for the process
  • should the DAO ask for a development grant to be paid to pNetwork for the setup of the bridge for early-stage projects? If so, what should be the amount (<15k, 15-30k, 30-50k, 50-75k, >75k usdt) of the grant the DAO should require for the setup?
    While discussing this point, please keep into consideration the development/maintenance costs of setting up a bridge and the gas costs for running a DAO vote. Similarly, please consider the offering of alternative solutions in regards to setting up cross-chain bridges (example: Anyswap lets projects integrate for free).

Vitalik mentioned POAP NFT . Recently because Ethereum fees are high ,all POAP(over 1 billion)NFTs are minted on xDai and ERC-721 . Right now communities like NFT from Coingecko candy are ,stuck, on Xdai and not entering OpenSea market .xDai is not taken into account on OpenSea and most NFTs are in the dark ,waiting for miracoulos ethereum fee reduction in order to be sent to Ethereum-OpenSea. Can pNetwork start transfering somehow the ERC-721 from xDai to Ethereum for lets say 1$ and not the over 20$ as usual …? Sign in to CoinGecko Dashboard | CoinGecko

hey @CandyCzar - that’s a very good point! pNetwork does support cross-chain movements of NFTs already via pNetwork Portals. Currently, that’s active between Ethereum and BSC, but being xDAI a blockchain pNetwork already supports for assets, it’s doable to also enable NFT Portals for it. This would be similar to the ChainGuardians one.

If there is a strong interest from POAP or CoinGecko or their communities, we can do it. I mention the strong interest because this has to create a benefit for pNetwork nodes and the pNetwork ecosystem, so the project has an interest in working on the support for those Portals if there’s actual use for them.

Ok Thomas . Just send one of your people to POAP Telegram group and start interacting with the community there . Telegram: Contact @poapxyz or just contact Bobby Ong\Coingecko on Telegram .

Coingecko is claiming 12 million users . Their NFTs are ,sold, in a minute as editions are only of 1000 minted in a month more or less . Some editions they have new partnerships like GALA,REVV,AAVE,Enjin and others ,
pNetwork and Eidoo can be the perfect partner as users of Coingecko will get the Coingecko\PNT NFT in their new registered Eidoo wallets . So Coingecko users(did i mention them…) must install Eidoo wallet…and recieve there their special edition Coingecko\PNT NFT .

DAO might be able to manage this if:

  • The applicant team prepare proper whitepaper, project introduction, business case to sustain the application
  • The development is paid by the DAO at fixed price - the development team should provide the size of the Grant and the DAO should define if the applicant team should pay to the DAO with or without a markup (+) or an incentive (-)
  • In the case the go is for an incentive, the DAO should gain directly from the bridge implementation
  • To have the DAO properly evaluate then, the DAO should get part of the fees in its treasury or have some earnings from the initial markup
  • The DAO should have a strategy to manage the treasury (eg. to cover any damage for users, like recent events, unlikely, suggest to consider)

If the DAO doesn’t earn directly from the bridge, makes no sense to let the DAO decide because decision might be not conscious - just a click to get the period rewards.

All of this added to your 4 points.
Hope this stimulate the discussion.

1 Like

I would like to get the OKBOOMER project up to vote for a potential pToken bridge. Where can I apply?