I’m going to make some points here (not necessarily related to conversations today) that might make some people uncomfortable, but they are worth discussion if so. I was on the AWG OT call until @MrMadila @anthonyb.eth and I called it quits at the 2.75-hour mark; 1.75-hours were spent discussing only this topic, and I can’t thank you both enough for it (along with the dozen or so Owls that started the OT journey, including @Don-ETH). We covered an enormous amount of ground and my brain got a pretty solid workout; just doin reps with the Owls. I digress . . .
Point 1: We have not permissioned partnerships to date, other than with methodologists (but not until late-stages and there is a specification for it).
I don’t see any blockers given there is no monetary or resource ask associated. @Matthew_Graham may co-lead F.Nest, but he’s expert at driving partnerships and integrations in the face of broader DAO challenges, I’d recommend seeking his council on how to navigate here if there’s a desire to press on.
Point 2: Nothing bad happens to IC at a protocol-level in the event of catastrophic bridge failure.
A feature however, is that assets locked in a bridge forever will remain forever streaming fees to our accounts. This is not meant to wax insensitive to would-be-affected-users, but their anger would likely not be directed at any particular protocol affected by chain or bridge failure. We make the good stuff; I see it like wrapped bitcoin. Call it wDPI if it helps conceptually; it did for me to work through this.
cc: @edwardk @dylan for input if time allows.
Point 3: The result of increasing TVL anywhere is an increase to TVL overall.
Choosing to meet users where they’re at when the net effect to IC’s treasury is positive seems obvious. I would counter the “mrhmmm chain looks real bad from over here” takes with: There probably aren’t diversification options available on BSC as robust as IC products; are we saying that BSC users don’t deserve access to our products?
Pretty powerful mission statement to live up to in our Guiding Principles. Are we endeavoring hard enough here? I don’t see passing judgement on over 100MM users L1 choice as productive in this context. Busiest DEX in the world lives on BSC, I want IC products trading on it, and every other DEX.
Point 4: We don’t just onramp assets, we onboard community members.
Everyone comes to understand our products and us differently. We claim to be a global community open to all. In my view, given the technical requirements of purchasing our products, no one is on-ramping without onboarding to some degree (even if it’s just a pass by coingecko). Killing the network-effect of early higher-context users becoming evangelists and contributors, at the root, seems short-sighted. Further, how are all those BSC folks going to know how much better Ethereum is if we never build a bridge to tell them? Just be sure to let them know that gas fees for DEX swaps are holding steady at 0.25 BNB equivalent currently on mainnet.
Point 5: We empowered APAC WG to deliver on a WG proposal.
If leaders within this WG see fit to pursue a BSC strategy (or Cardano strategy, or a Hex partnership), it should not affect the DAOs commitment to reasonably providing support; similarly, we should not be dedicating IC resources to facilitating challenges to actions taken by a WG. We delegate responsibility and autonomy for exactly this reason. As far as I know anyone can propose a new specification in this forum; if anyone feels strongly enough to the negative about BSC I suggest that those undertaking the challenge do the diligence to make that challenge - the burden does not fall to APWG to respond to challenges (as I’ve seen some request) given that no request for resources is being made yet.
The message I wish to convey in relation to the last point is simply that WGLs should execute as they see most appropriate within the limits of our guiding principles and WG remits; I’ll be disappointed in anything less. In a sense, this would be an at-risk endeavor if it informs a large part of APWG’s impact at the end of Q1’22 and the DAO is still 2/3 against; on the other hand impact is incredibly easy to track given that APWG seem to be the only WG broadly looking to drive into this space (all BSC IC AUM would be mainly attributable to one WG if no further resources are allocated) and this seems well-suited to an incremental approach while executing on other WG initiatives.
The original post should inform a template for highlighting partnership opportunities more broadly imo; I doubt many (or any) would compare to the size of the opportunity you’ve illuminated with hard data. Great work on this @Louisaraj @sriram and @pujimak_in. I’d be particularly interested in further BDWG input if time allows @Mringz @BigSky7.
