A unified token or 2 separate tokens?

Most of the Polkadot projects will become parachains on BOTH Kusama and Polkadot. Do you prefer parachain projects to have a unified token for both relay chains or 2 separate tokens for each of them?

  • One token for both chains
  • Separate chains & tokens
  • I don’t care

0 投票人

2 tokens plan benefit:

  • Airdrop to Kusama-Phala Crowloan supporters, reward is no limited . Because new token on Kusama don’t have a price, bigger chance to win
  • Airdrop to PHA holders, new candy!
  • miners could mint 2 tokens!

2 tokens plan weakness:

  • Consensus of Phala will separate into 2 parts, 1 on Kusama and 1 on Polkadot
  • Very same plan with other parachains
  • not sure about token utility
  • Team will add more cost in running 2 chains

1 tokens plan benefit:

  • All value in PHA
  • 1+X% of PHA is on Kusama and 99-x% is on Polkadot
  • Diff from other parachain plans

1 token weakness:

  • reward limited, 6.3% for Kusama and Polkadot slots together
  • People will make decision by $PHA token price and $KSM & $DOT price. It’s very reality

Please leave your further comments!

1 Like

The Kusama network is different from the Rococo testnet. It’s not just another place for testing Polkadot code: Kusama is a place for experimenting with new features that may never make it to Polkadot.

Kusama is sometimes called Polkadot’s “canary Network.” Canaries used to be placed in mines because they die quickly if there is toxic gas buildup, letting the miners flee before they lost their lives.

If there is one PHA token used on both Polkadot and on Kusama, is the fraction on Kusama at any risk? There may be new flaws and vulnerabilities. Exploits that can lead to theft, errors that can lead to locked coins, even vulnerabilities that are technically correct but can lead some parties to have enormous gains and losses (see recent DeFi flashloan-powered expoits.) Perhaps the Kusama chain is even halted, for some reason.

If these risks exist, then the 2 token plan isolates PHA on Polkadot from the risks of the experimental Kusama network… and the existence of a second PHA on Kusama lets people be more free with their token, experimenting without fear of great financial loss.

The most interesting thing about this is that it may not matter when predicting the behavior of people trying to create private transactions. Meaning: They will go where it is cheapest/easiest to accomplish (some action).

Yes, I know this is not a realistic example. Let’s say we want to make some trade of ERC20 tokens (a la “AirSwap”). We can assume that many bridges from ETH, KSM, and DOT (which we will need to be successful for many reasons, anyway) exist. The users want this swap in secret and may not care which wallet holds the asset after the swap. Well, which chain is cheaper to do the swap? KSM or DOT? That’s all they are going to care about.

I see more “enterprise” types of transactions taking place on DOT because the code there will be more hardened. However, KSM is basically ETH2 before ETH2 will be. If it is interconnected enough, it will be subject to rug pulls and scams and all the nonsense that ETH is subject to, anyway. DOT puts a larger barrier to entry for nonsense, but if something WORKS on KSM, then users won’t care. Things WORK on ETH. You just pay too much to do them.

Whether there are 1 or 2 tokens I don’t think will matter in the end: People will do whatever is cheaper/easier/faster 9 times out of 10.