Proposal 49: make XCVP a transferrable token and bridge multinetwork

XCVP currently exists only on the Ethereum Mainnet. While CVP has been successfully bridged to BSC, and there are plans down the road to bridge it to Polygon and other chains. The proposal below is inspired by what the MIM/Abracadabra protocol have implemented.

CVP holders who stake in XCVP benefit from protocol rewards. To create staking contracts on other chains would be complicated at best. It would be more expedient to

(1) Test that XCVP is fully transferrable as a token without any additional complexity brought about by the staking contract in doing so. If there are complexities in transferring, create a new contract WXCVP that would hold the staking contract and accumulate rewards with a wrap/unwrap contract on ETH mainnet.

(2) Change all bridging functionality from CVP (0x38e4adb44ef08f22f5b5b76a8f0c2d0dcbe7dca1) to XCVP (0x9ae236653325b29d5ab4a2c8cb285e8059c2c204), or if needed, WXCVP for current and future chains. All future non-mainnet rewards to be issued in XCVP/WXCVP.

(3) For chains where there is an existing CVP population, create a conversion contract from CVP to XCVP/WXCVP, with a zap in/out so that gas costs of the bridge could be socialised and a periodic bridging (1x per week with a 100K CVP threshold for immediacy?). Else we could leave to the users to bridge back their CVP.

This would help ensure users off of mainnet have the opportunity to stake and take advantage of the protocol’s revenues and rewards in a cost effective manner.

Thanks for this…sounds like something that should be seriously considered. The issue is WHEN? Why is this urgent? The value of xCVP is directly a function of the number of new pools launched, not the number of chains it can be staked on. Right now we have 2-3 more pools to launch asap and cannot keep up. Where do we get the resources to do this?

I agree that it is important to keep this kind of evolving technology on the radar…but priorities need to be rigorously managed, otherwise the Proposal calendar just becomes an archive of cool ideas.

The Discord Forum SparkDev channel (or xCVP channel) is the place to sound out/weigh this sort of thing. Please clarify how much of a priority this is, and what development resources should be diverted to execute it? You can do that on Discord. Just lobbing stuff into the Forum Proposal calendar is not the way we are doing things now.

To further clarify, the Wiki says:

“Formal Proposals to the DAO can start on Discord with intriguing ideas referred to Team Leaders for discussion/option generation within the relevant SparkTeam(s). Promising options will eventually move to the PowerPool (Discourse-based) Forum, which will be strongly-moderated to manage signal/noise and clutter, since any xCVP>1,000 staker can post suggestions in the Forum.”

In other words, as a >1,000 Illuminati, you have a RIGHT to post a proposal, but I am asking you to justify the URGENCY,

Thank you for the response - you’re right this could get out of control quick. I mentioned this on the Discord, but didn’t think to put it in the Spark, so I’ll know better next time.

So I think the way I would characterise prioritiy/time commitment:
(1) If XCVP is transferrable on its own, then this should be a short job to verify (preferably someone who can read the contract parameters can tell us this rather than somebody just randomly transfers and sees if transaction fails). I know some staked coins can’t be moved and will fail if you try.
=> so if no need for WXCVP, this could be an hour or less to assess and do a test transfer.

(2) If there’s no need for a WXCVP and we can transfer it freely section two only matters for the purposes of the next time we launch CVP on another chain (e.g. won’t it happen for coinciding with the Polygon pool in 4Q?). Instead of bridging CVP, we just bridge XCVP and leave it at that - but this approach only makes sense if we do it before the first bridging of CVP.
=> this should not be any additional commitment of time if it’s done before bridging CVP to any new chains

(3) is a nice to have frankly and we could just say it’s too low a priority to carry out, so let the BSC CVP holders bridge to ETH and stake there. It would be nice to avoid creating that situation.
=> this could be too much a commitment of time to be worthwihle

thank you for the proposal!

Thanks, I have cross-posted your clarification to the Discord SparkDev channel…we will continue the dialogue there to refine the Proposal…