Bridging (Insert Def) main purpose is to reduce the operational costs of distributing $PRTN and other assets (ETH/USDC). As we continue to need to pay core team; potential collaborators and future projects and grants we want to ensure we are maximising the potential of our assets. So we propose to bridge a portion of the treasury over, leaving the majority for security reasons on ETH mainnet.
Specifics:
We will bridge 5,000,000 $PRTN (5% of total supply) and $50,000 USDC (20% of $250,000 current treasury) to a polygon gnosis safe as a child of the Protein safe.
We will use coinvise to import the $PRTN tokens, and then bridge the % across to polygon. You can find out more about the process here.
We then use this, integrated with apps ‘superfluid’ and ‘CSV airdrops’ for our transactions to send PRTN (on polygon), ETH and USD Coin (PoS) to members.
We’ll be able to do this more regularly and aligned with our earn to access models. Receivers get their assets on the MATIC network, which they can bridge back to mainnet if they need to.
We propose that liquidity pools will be set up on eth mainnet, Snapshot and guild can be used with both polygon and mainnet integrations.
Rationale:
Primary purpose is to reduce gas transaction costs. Gas is prohibitive for maximising the $PRTN value for the community and contributors.
We’re seeing more and more communities create layer2 solutions to their smaller operational transactions, and more products being built with this in mind.
Creating liquidity on just mainnet is important to work against price volatility and for security reasons
Benefits:
Members can get instantly airdropped their compensation for contributors without incurring gas fees.
Core team can use superfluid (operating on polygon to stream assets)
Transferring assets is cheaper
Concerns:
Splitting the $PRTN token between eth mainnet and polygon could cause confusion as the $PRTN token grows
We’ve been advised through other community case studies like grc that this isn’t an issue
Members having to ‘bridge’ the $PRTN back could cause confusion
We’ll create comprehensive education around this process
Creating liquidity on just mainnet means members have to pay gas to bridge back the tokens to mainnet and also pay gas to list them. This could cause a lack of incentive for contributions and frustration.
In reality this will encourage members to be more thoughtful about holding their $PRTN/continuing to build the ecosystem
Good Growth:
Bridging tokens is key to good growth because it allows the Protein Community to distribute tokens faster and more efficiently, creating a more diverse token economy and base.
Blockchain Bridges - A blockchain bridge is a connection that allows the transfer of tokens and/or arbitrary data from one chain to another . Both chains can have different protocols, rules and governance models, but the bridge provides a compatible way to interoperate securely on both sides.
Mainnet - Ethereum Mainnet - Mainnet is the term used to describe when a blockchain protocol is fully developed and deployed, meaning that cryptocurrency transactions are being broadcasted, verified, and recorded on a distributed ledger technology (blockchain).
Gas Costs - Gas refers to the fee, or pricing value, required to successfully conduct a transaction** or execute a contract on the Ethereum blockchain platform.
OK and rationale for not moving it all to polygon / or doing snapshot and drop in polygon … ie giving everyone their current tokens on poly and ditching the old
is that the liquidity pools need to be on mainnnet?
correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I understand Polygon will be used for compensation, and we’ll still have to airdrop $PRTN as utility tokens (for voting, access to Discord, etc)
Just seconding this question. Would love any more info on why not move it all to Polygon (I am a fan of the enviro benefits of L2’s (though Ethereum should be PoS soon)). I’m still fairly new to intricacies of different chains, though, so would love to understand better the benefits of staying on main chain vs. moving it all over to Polygon. Thanks!
Hey thanks for this question; in this stage it’s essentially a test to make sure the transition will work for the community before we’d thinking about bridging the full amount. We’ve thought about it for sure, and also reminting an entirely new token on polygon.
For now, it makes the most sense to bridge a smaller amount which we allow us to create even more collaboration and ownership, with a chain which is still compatible with ETH mainnet in the longterm.
I am concerned that this is taken too lightly.
Polygon is not a layer 2 in the same way arbitrum, optimism or zkSync are. It is usually characterised as a sidechain. I do think L2s (that benefit from mainet safeguards) should have been more seriously considered.
That being said, I support the initiative of moving 5% of token supply to the polygon chain.
Hey Parseb, first thanks for commenting here. Defo welcome the discussion and wish we’d been able to engage earlier so we could have explored it together. I’d like to set up a call to discuss these true L2’s , and as you said, for now, the initial test of 5% seems like an appropriate test for getting $PRTN into the hands of more people.
As well as there being easy low cost bridges from polygon to say, for example optimism if we decided after more research to go that way.
I’m wondering if you’ve got any thoughts on the withdrawal times of both optimism and arbitrum back to eth mainnet. For example, if we decided we wanted to keep liquidity on mainnet, or revert the decision in the future. From what I can see, it looks like these withdrawls back to mainnet take about 7 days, which would be inconvenient to members. Unlike polygon which is roughly an hour.
This proposal has been voted and passed. Thank you.