sy
sydney_bro@sydney_bro路/pointless路Sep 04

馃毃Need feedback from pointless community 馃毃

I'm ready to deploy pointless layerzero contracts to make pointless multi-chain however I need some feedback from the community.

You may already be aware that pointless was airdropped to everyone who had a lens handle on 15th Dec 2023. Unfortunately it included a number of bot/inactive accounts and once the price started going up, these bots started selling aggressively. Within the core contributors, we discussed several ideas to get rid of the bots. We even thought of migrating pointless to a new contract and excluding the bots but that approach was not very clean considering pointless was already available as a collect/tipping currency on multiple lens front ends and we had added liquidity, paid for dexscreener etc. Moreover, it would have been messy to filter out all the bots without hurting any real users. So we ruled out migration.

When lens announced migration to zk stack, we started thinking of making pointless available on the new platform as well. Implementing pointless as a LayerZero OFT(omni chain fungible token) came to mind at first and I started working on that. Using LayerZero technology, we could make pointless go multi-chain and be available on all the major L2s. That is exciting.
We have plans to first deploy on Base and later to ZKSync era or lens network.
Obviously we plan to grow pointless liquidity on base and ZK and focus less on polygon but pointless liquidity will still be available on Polygon as well. So, it may be favourable to trade more on Base and ZK.

@dydymoon made an interesting suggestion to implement custom bridging fees when bridging out from polygon to get rid of bots/punish the bots. The idea is to have a fixed fee in pointless(not %) on every bridging transaction going out from Polygon of about 2.5M pointless(we can change it based on community feedback). Layerzero also charges a fees in matic when bridging(~0.3-0.4 matic in my tests). Given that most bots got 5M pointless airdrop, this would mean they lose 50% of their airdrop if they want to use the bridge. Real users are obviously holding larger amounts of pointless and as such, it shouldn't hurt them too much. Moreover, we split the bridge fees into two, 2M gets burned while 0.5M goes to treasury. So this way we reduce the supply of pointless as well.

Moreover, as a security measure, these fees parameters are under a timelock contract with only pointless multisig allowed to make changes with a minimum delay of 24 hours.

Please let me know if you think it's a good idea to charge custom bridging fees in pointless. If the community decides against it, we will remove it.
Otherwise if you think we should have a lower custom fees, please let me know how much in the comments below 馃憞

Peace 鉁岋笍

  • hu
    hunter (馃煛,馃煛)@ultrasoul路Sep 04

    My two cents:

    1. bots may not even use the bridge but real user will.
    2. a bot with several wallets can consolidate in one wallet and pay bridge fee only once.
    2
    • su
      Superluminal@superluminal路Sep 04

      Like the idea. I would even suggest a higher fee. Why not 5M for example?

      3
      • da
        dankshard@dankshard路Sep 04

        The custom bridge fees are okay and acceptable, we need to get rid of the bots forever. However, I'm not sure about launching on two chains. The liquidity will initially be small; isn't it a problem if it gets further fragmented?

        3
        • er
          Eremita@cavernaeremita路Sep 04

          Opa! If the reason for the bridging fee is to filter out bots and inactive accounts, it might be interesting to create some alternative criteria for a wallet to be added to a fee-free allowlist in $pointless, not exactly for the financial value, but it doesn't seem right to me to have a punitive measure applied indiscriminately to everyone. I think it's always better to add benefits than punishments to community-oriented actions, which have the same practical effect in solving a problem, but different psychological effects and a higher adoption rate. That is, if the goal is to have a migration of the token between different blockchains, a punitive measure will probably decrease this conversion and a benefit will increase this conversion. I imagine that at some point you've already thought about how you would modify the initial airdrop criteria, so this could be the way to go.... 馃榿

          5
          • ya
            Yakuza (馃煛,馃煛)@iamtherealyakuza路Sep 04

            I like the idea but burn 2M isn鈥檛 it too much?

            Do you prefer to reduce supply rather topping up the treasury?

            What are the benefits on it?

            3