[Voted] Build HashVerse on its own chain, with HFT as utility token

Please use this template to structure your proposals for Hashflow.

Proposal Structure

Title: Build HashVerse on its own chain, with HFT as utility token
Author(s): Victor Ionescu
Related Discussions: none
Submission Date: November 19 2022

Body Paragraphs:

Simple Summary: Build and deploy HashVerse contracts on a dedicated chain (could be a side chain). Use HFT as main utility token.

Abstract: There are multiple chain choices that we can make when building the HashVerse. For example, it could be built on Ethereum, Polygon, or Avalanche.

Learning from past experiences (see Otherside mint), the TPS of the metaverse is going to be limited by the TPS of the chain that it runs on. Many popular apps (BAYC, Wolf Game) have spiked gas prices in the past, making UX quite terrible for their users.

As a further example, Avalanche introduced subnets to solve for this exact problem. DFK is a great example of how a subnet can work independently and not clog the entire chain, while sometimes achieving higher TPS than the base chain.

While this proposal DOES NOT suggest a solution for which technology to use, it suggest that HashVerse lives on a separate chain, and HFT is the utility (gas) token on that chain. On top of better UX, this greatly increases the utility of HFT.

Together with that, a few fundamental pieces of infrastructure would also have to be built:

  • Cross-Chain bridges for NFTs
  • Cross-Chain bridges for HFT
  • Native NFT marketplace in the HashVerse

Motivation: This proposal aims to both create better UX in the HashVerse (cheaper, faster transactions), as well as increase HFT utility.

Benefits (Pros):

  • increased utility for HFT
  • increased number of HFT holders
  • better user experience for HashVerse participants

Downside (Cons):

  1. Less exposure to popular NFT marketplaces (e.g. OpenSea / MagicEden on Ethereum / Polygon). Since the HashVerse will involve plenty of item NFTs, it’s important for these NFTs to be discoverable and easy to trade. The suggestion is that we mitigate this by doing two things:
  • creating an NFT market place in the HashVerse – incentivizes the use of HFT as a utility token
  • creating a bridge so that these items can be moved between the HashVerse and popular NFT chains (Ethereum, Polygon, Avalanche) and traded on the most popular platforms
  1. Extra steps required for bridging. Users will have to bridge HFT into the HashVerse prior to taking steps in the game. While this is true:
  • HFT already lives on two chains (Ethereum and BNB) and some of the users will have to bridge anyway
  • if the HashVerse ends up delivering, there should be enough of an incentive for holders to bridge to the HashVerse and remain there for prolonged periods of time for participation

Voting: A yes vote means that HashVerse should be built as part of its own chain. A no vote means that this topic should be deferred until later.


Thanks for this proposal @gxmxni!

We are all excited for the HashVerse (tho we don’t know much about it yet!)
Driving demand for HFT is key for the success of the protocol and by making it the utility/gas token used in the HashVerse on its own chain aligns us to this goal.

Generally speaking UX is a pretty major problem in the crypto space and I’m happy we have a team that is highly technical that can take on a challenge like this.

Making the HashVerse fun, fast and cheap to interact with will get us superior UX. To me, this clearly outweighs the drawbacks mentioned in the proposal.

Strong yes from me.

great idea, especially that it creates a major reason for holding/spending HFT,
needs a lot of hard work though

I totally agree with the General Idea but details should be discussed more.
since we are entering into a multi-chain world, we will definitely need our own chain for different purposes including those you mentioned the proposal and etc.
as an etherean, I prefer to built our hashverse on a sidechain/rollup on ethereum network but other solutions like creating a sovereign and dedicated chain using Cosmos tech should be considered. as of now, I like to wait for the full details of hashverse to reveal and then decide. in the meanwhile I like to explore for more possible utilities within hashverse so if we failed at one goal like adoption of our NFT marketplace, we will be able to achieve the remaining.
Also at the current stage I prefer to work on the improvements of our DEX rather than our Governance metaverse.

thank you

1 Like

It sounds good to develop your market from scratch, but this is not enough, people will not come simply because you called them, there must be something profitable and useful for them. Therefore, if you do not have a magic marketing pill, then you need to stay where everyone else is. So I’ll vote “no” if it matters.)

1 Like

A great idea!
To deploy Hashverse on sidechain? Cool but how about fewer exposure.
How about deploy on the mainchain first to make it workable then deploy on own side chain? Develop a chain requires way more input/longer than a Dapp. Just my two cents.

First of all thanks for being focused on building in bear market. :v:

I like the idea of creating more utilities for HFT tokens.
I don’t like to give a absolute YES or NO to this proposal yet.

so, for now, I am curious about the suggestions in the Cons section. (Creating NFT Market place in the Hashverse and Bridging NFTs) :thinking:

Even though sometimes troubling with high gas fees, Majority of Brands prefer Ethereum blockchain and OpenSea Marketplace. what’s the reason? I think less exposure to famous marketplaces eliminate some new potential users. :melting_face:

1 Like

I definitely think there are downsides that should not be ignored here. As you said, NFT activity is skewed toward the top 2-3 chains.

A few thoughts on mitigation:

  • the HashVerse avatar NFTs will be soul-bound, hence non-transferrable
  • an NFT marketplace on the side-chain would HAVE TO EXIST
  • the bridge would make it possible for the NFTs to be tradeable on places like OpenSea

Some downsides here:

  • discoverability could suffer if not that many NFTs have been bridged over
  • probably no integration with Twitter PFP if the soul-bound NFTs are not on Ethereum

My proposal would be an EVM-compatible chain for sure. It’s a bit unclear now which solution we would use. That would have to be another proposal.

The proposal sounds good, given that the main aspect is made on the development of the entire ecosystem of Hashflow

I believe we should focus on improving our Own DEX first. use one of ethereum sidechain/rollup for the start and finally when we are grown enough, start building our own chain.

building a dedicated chain needs a plenty of time and engineering time and may not be priority now.

I understand why some people may think this is not a good idea! My general suggested approach:

  • let’s change the “No” vote to mean “decision deferred until later”
  • let’s see what happens if this goes on-chain
1 Like

Agree with the first approach.

I updated the proposal description to change the meaning of what voting “No” would entail (decision deferred).

It looks like we have gathered enough comments here to formalize this proposal. I would request that the Guardians post this in the Formal Proposals section, so that it can be brought up for voting.

The comment period for this thread is now closed - thanks for all the comments!