Bridging AKITA & HACHI to Coinbase’s L2 solution Base

🤝 DAO Proposals
1

Summary
This is a proposal to bridge AKITA INU and Hachi to Coinbase’s Ethereum L2 solution ‘Base’. The purpose is to enable low transaction costs for both tokens and the utility we build around them, and to reach an additional audience for our tokens.

This proposal requires a budget to (1) add liquidity to both tokens on Base, (2) creating the bridge between Ethereum Mainnet and Base and (3) staff to execute items #1 and #2. In case we do not have enough funds to set up both liquidity pools at once, then we must proceed with Akita first!

Marketing budget should be secured via a separate proposal.

Current situation
Today, Akita is on Ethereum and Avalanche, while Hachi is only available on Ethereum. This means we have to deal with relatively high gas costs whenever we perform transactions (be it for trading, airdrops, claims or other utility such as in-game transactions).

Q: Why don’t we just focus on Avalanche since Akita is already available there?
A: Akita has been on Avalanche for a long time with little impact. Also, our liquidity on Avalanche is rather low so the main cost saving of sticking with Avalanche is related to setting up the bridge.

Bridging to Base
Base is an Ethereum Layer 2 solution developed by cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase, in partnership with Optimism to provide a secure, cost-effective and developer-friendly environment to build on-chain applications. Base is compatible with all EVM-wallets (incl. Metamask) and the Coinbase wallet.

This is a proposal to bridge Akita and Hachi to Base, to enable more gas efficient trading and utility.

Base is the recommended option since it is a popular and comparatively new L2 solution (and Base being Coinbase’s own solution should probably not be scoffed at).

IMG_5150
IMG_5150924×917 97.1 KB

Image source: https://www.coingecko.com/research/publications/fastest-growing-layer-2?utm_source=explore&utm_medium=app

Base is also recommended as it is targeting a wide audience, including meme and gaming.

Budget & execution
LIQUIDITY POOLS:

  • Akita liquidity pool: $20K ETH paired with $20K Akita (total $40K)
  • Hachi liquidity pool: $12.5K ETH paired wkth $12.5K Hachi (total $25K)

Akita’s liquidity pool is bigger than Hachi’s. This is to show Akita Inu is, and will always be, our priority #1.

Furthermore, this proposal is securing an additional budget for the Base liquidity pools, to add a total of $2000 per month over the next two years.

SETTING UP THE BRIDGE: Exact cost will be confirmed after the proposal is approved, but it is assumed to be less than $1.5K.

STAFF to coordinate the bridging and setting up liquidity pools: $500.

The selection of the coordinator can be handled via a Telegram vote. However, due to the large volume of money involved in this, the coordinator should be a long-term active and trusted member of Akita DAO.

MARKETING: Akita and Hachi on Base should be properly marketed, but the marketing budget should be secured via a separate proposal.

Timeline

  • Discourse discussion (this here): 1 week
  • Snapshot vote: 1 week
  • Execution: Coordinator selection starts a few days after the voting. Funds should be earmarked for this initiative until we have enough funds to set up the liquidity pools. We will set up the Akita liquidity pool first if we do not have funds to set up both pools at once.

If there is anything technically preventing us from bridging both tokens to Base, then we either wait until those technical dependencies are resolved or we raise a second proposal to decide on another L2 solution (using the same budget and approach already described in this proposal).

Assumptions
This proposal is written under the assumption we are able to set up the bridge(s) without creating new token contracts on Base.

It is also assumed we won’t need to spend more than $1.5K on setting up the bridge(s). An additional proposal would be needed if bridging costs more than $5K (god forbid :face_with_spiral_eyes:). Otherwise it can be handled via a Telegram vote.

Voting options

  • Yes/Agree: Proceed to set up the liquidity and bridge for both tokens on Base.
  • No/Disagree: Significant change is required before the proposal is put up for voting again.
  • Abstain
5 Likes
2

Please comment so I can understand if this proposal should be adjusted before we vote on it. Thank you!

IMG_5156

2 Likes
3

And in case we do not have funds, it could be an interesting use case to let the LBP generate part of the liquidity needed for this initiative.

Referring to: https://discourse.akita.network/t/use-fjord-foundry-to-build-treasury-reserve/

4 Likes
4

Just finished reading. I really liked how the proposal is delivered. Everything is understandable. (Cost, necessary actions, impact…)

I think that this is something that’s needed for Making Community more active. Smaller gas fees would give Community more freedom for New adventures in #AKITA_NETWORK.

This also would attract more new investors because of small gas fees.

In latest AMA with Gate.io there were more than one question about bridging $AKITA to new block chains!

I think that this is right Direction for whole #AKITA_NETWORK Community!

Also it’s really good that you mentioned LBP as an option for generating part of the liquidity referring on Ryan’s idea!

2 Likes
5

My opinion is to skip HACHI . We don’t need to have HACHI in many chains . We can use 50% of HACHI base LP for AKITA . AKITA has bigger and more investors to come, while HACH has much lower volume in UniSwap

Also,It will be good if the current AKITA CEXs support the new chain listing !

1 Like
6

Are we gonna use public platforms for Bridging?

1 Like
7

That should be voted on as part of the proposal. It is easier to use Hachi for utilities such as in-game transactions, airdrops etc. Otherwise you would have to buy Akita from the market to do this.

1 Like
8

I like the idea of using CoinBase but I have to ask, are there any disadvantages to this?

Or any risks?

1 Like
9

HACHI can be used in Erc , it doesn’t really match on Base cause it’s not big . But AKITA does i really like the idea

In my mind adding HACHI to Base chain at this moment won’t have any advangates

10

I don’t think there would be any disadvantages for AKITA on Base . But HACHI , who is gonna use that?

11

There will always be people with different opinions. That’s why there is a DAO, so we can meet and vote on the proposals.

The core of this idea is actually not Base, but to have both tokens available on a gas efficient L2. That way, we set the foundation needed to build games and other utility which otherwise could come with gas fees the investors aren’t willing to pay.

This is important for both Akita and Hachi. It could easily get expensive to use utility meant to trigger a large number of transactions (such as airdrops, claims or in-game economy mechanisms). That is where Hachi could be more suitable - but not if there are high gas fees.

1 Like
12

Ok so please consider in voting options . Thanks

13

Thank you for putting together this proposal. The general idea is good, and BASE is certainly a very accessible L2 for AKITA to reach new audiences.

I’d be concerned about the cost of building the bridge, mainly in regards to security.

The other hurdle is getting the AKITA token “whitelisted” on the network. See here for current list of permitted assets.

I’ve opened a ticket with the Base team in their discord to find more details, but I don’t think this should stop the proposal from being voted upon if we have met the necessary governance requirements.

1 Like
14

Staring me in the face:

1 Like
15

My recommendation would be to skip Base for now (due to their listing requirements) and focus on Optimism, Arbitrum or Solana.

IMO, Solana would be most tailored to the meme audience while any of the other two would cater to a broader audience.

Budget: Same as mentioned above ($20K Akita + $20K native token). We can start with Akita, then we decide as a second step if we want to also add Hachi.

2 Likes
16

Solana is having a lot of exposure right now, we would need to establish a bridge to the network – I think Wormhole might be the best solution.

Otherwise, my choice would be for Arbitrum. The Yes vote options could also reflect these possible chains so that we have a sense of desirability.

1 Like
17

All platforms are great
But a question arises that the creation of a new platform leads to the creation of a new token? If the answer is yes, then it is not a wise thing to do

1 Like
18

This is for bridging, the same as we have previously done for the Avalanche Network. A token is created on the new network, but their trading activities are still linked by price feed oracles.

1 Like
19

Revised version based on recent conversations on Telegram and Discourse.

Summary
This is a proposal to bridge Akita inu to Solana while potentially also increasing our presence on Avalanche.

The purpose of bridging to Solana is to:

  1. Increase the amount of Akita investors.
  2. Give all of us an additional low-gas alternative.

The request for more gas efficient alternatives is also why we add an option to vote for more liquidity on Avalanche.

This proposal requires a budget to:

  1. create the token on Solana.
  2. add Akita liquidity to Solana.
  3. set up the bridge between Ethereum Mainnet and Solana.
  4. staff to execute all these items.

Marketing budget should be secured via a separate proposal.

Current situation
Today, Akita is on Ethereum and Avalanche. We had an informal vote on Telegram asking the community where they wanted us to focus, and the winner was Solana.

IMG_6062
IMG_6062893×1261 158 KB

This proposal is also recognizing the significant volume of voters who wanted us to spend more time and money expanding our presence on Avalanche.

Bridging to Solana
Solana tokens have been on a rise lately, especially meme tokens.

However, it should be remembered Solana is not EVM compatible. Any utility we build on Solana can’t be used on Ethereum and Avalanche (and vice versa).

Bridging most likely entails the following:

  • Launching the token contract on Solana as a bridged counterpart of our ERC20 token.
  • Connecting our ERC20 token with the new counterpart token on Solana. Leverage existing solutions like Wormhole for this instead of building a custom solution.
  • Align the price of the ERC20 token with the price of the new token on Solana (likely using price feed oracles)
  • Define and execute a solution to prevent Akita on Solana from impacting the total supply of Akita inu.

Budget & execution

All items here except the liquidity pool are estimates. Should more money be required for the implementation, an additional proposal has to be created.

The proposal requests that we earmark tokens until we have enough to implement this initiative (implementation can be done in phases or all at once).

Akita on Solana

  • Develop & launch the Akita token on Solana: $2K maximum.
  • Solana Akita liquidity pool: $20K SOL paired with $20K Akita (total $40K).
  • Setting up the bridge (including implementing the solution to align Akita’s price on Ethereum mainnet and Solana, and preventing significant impact on the total supply): $3K maximum.
  • This proposal also secures an additional Solana liquidity budget of $1000 / month over the next two years.

Akita on Avalanche

  • $7.5K to the TraderJoe liquidity pool already set up on Avalanche.
  • This proposal also secures an additional Avalanche liquidity budget of $1000 / month over the next two years.

Coordination

  • Staff to coordinate the implementation: $500 (this coordinator can be selected by stewards).

Marketing

  • Akita on Solana and Avalanche should be properly marketed, but money for marketing is not included in this proposal. It can be secured via a separate proposal if necessary.

Timeline

  • Snapshot vote: 1 week
  • Execution: Should be implemented with a sense of urgency.

Assumptions

This proposal assumes we are able to align the price of Akita inu on Ethereum and Solana, similarly to how we previously aligned the price on Ethereum mainnet and Avalanche.

It is also assumed we do not need major help from developers to execute this scope. If that’s the case.

Voting options

  • Yes (I support this budget for both Solana and Avalanche)
  • Yes (I am only in favor of Avalanche, NOT Solana)
  • Yes (I am only in favor of Solana, NOT Avalanche)
  • No (I do not support Avalanche or Solana)
  • Abstain
2 Likes
20

Yeah personally I’d vote for
YES Avalanche
No Solana

Reasons being
1 - We already laid foundation in Avalanche, I don’t think we should start building a new house (Solana) without properly supporting the most recent house (Avalanche)

2 - The current copycat Akita in Solana isn’t doing well right now, this might not be the best time to launch the official $AKITA there, the status of the copycat might affect $AKITA

3 - We shouldn’t leave Avalanche as is, there are still people who use it to buy $AKITA. We need to support them

2 Likes