Expanding Terraport.finance to operate on multiple blockchain networks, such as Ethereum (ETH), Binance Smart Chain (BSC), Solana, and others, offers several compelling advantages and opportunities for the platform:
Enhanced Scalability: Operating on multiple blockchain networks allows Terraport.finance to tap into the scalability features offered by different chains. While Lunc blockchain may have its scalability limits, other networks like BSC, Solana, and Ethereum provide higher throughput and transaction processing capabilities, enabling Terraport.finance to accommodate a larger user base and handle increased transaction volumes more efficiently.
Diversification of User Base: By expanding to other blockchain networks, Terraport.finance can access a broader and more diverse user base across different crypto communities. Ethereum, for instance, boasts a vast ecosystem of developers and users, while BSC has gained popularity for its low transaction fees and fast transaction confirmations. By leveraging multiple chains, Terraport.finance can attract users with varying preferences and requirements, further enhancing its market reach and adoption.
Interoperability and Cross-Chain Compatibility: Embracing interoperability standards allows Terraport.finance to seamlessly integrate with decentralized applications (DApps), protocols, and services across different blockchain networks. Cross-chain compatibility enables users to transfer assets and liquidity between different platforms, unlocking new opportunities for liquidity provision, yield farming, and decentralized finance activities. This interoperability fosters a more interconnected and efficient DeFi ecosystem, benefiting both Terraport.finance and its users.
Risk Mitigation and Resilience: Operating on multiple blockchain networks mitigates the risks associated with network congestion, outages, or vulnerabilities on any single chain. In the event of disruptions or technical issues on one network, Terraport.finance can maintain continuity of service by leveraging alternative chains, ensuring uninterrupted access to its platform and services for users.
Adoption of Emerging Technologies: Exploring new blockchain networks like Solana and others allows Terraport.finance to stay at the forefront of technological innovation in the blockchain space. These networks may offer unique features, such as faster transaction speeds, lower fees, or novel consensus mechanisms, which can enhance the platform’s performance, scalability, and user experience.
In conclusion, launching Terraport.finance on multiple blockchain networks presents a strategic opportunity to unlock new markets, improve scalability, foster interoperability, and mitigate risks. By embracing a multi-chain approach, Terraport.finance can position itself as a leading player in the decentralized finance landscape, offering users greater flexibility, accessibility, and resilience in their financial activities.
I totally agree. This BC has a big problem while the validators dont start to build together in benefits of Lunc.
I hope to get this proposal in governance soon
I think that we should first, as the title say, explore other blockchains. Then think about the launch/listing on them.
I have some concerns about what this really means in terms of the project:
-would it be like building a new terra token in other chain that needs to be created from scratch and replicate usability on other chain?
-would this imply having a different token with different supply, new presale for liquidity, etc? Or would it be using our CP terra that already have and send them to other chains?
Let’s say we have 286M terra in CP. Would be sending like 50M to each of 5 different blochains to back some wrapped Terras?
I would be happy to see that Terraport goes live on other chains but allways that is with wrapped versions of it and no with new terra tokens minted in other chains.
This way, demand of this wTerra would be significant for price and create incredible interchain arbitrages.
If the approach means minting new different Terra as Cremat did on lunc after launching on bsc, I think that’s totally confusing, makes seem less serious project and investors from one chain are not happy when development happens in the other or liquidity is added by creator in one project rather than the other.
Always that we don’t make any mess and keep up with the professional profile that we’ve till now, I would be in favor of explorations and even launching.
Launching on other networks means minting TERRA which will lead to devaluation. A better alternative is to bridge over with the existing supply!
Terraport is essentially LUNC founded and to move away from this goal you will need a radical change in the vision of the whole platform.
Until the Community starts engaging actively [and I mean a significant number of it] and it starts engaging in meaningful/thoughtful debates and takes control over decisive actions and starts governing in a real sense - using Governance for its purpose, then such suggestions have no grounds let alone any prospect.
Your suggestion has some real potential though, so here is an adjustment that should work:
We can launch on Solana [for instance] under the same ticker $TERRA through a smart contract that receives TERRA from LUNC (from native holders & locks it) and mints new TERRA on Solana on 1:1 basis.
When converting back to LUNC however, there is no TERRA-LUNC minting, but releasing from locked tockens in the smart contract (and burning TERRA-SOL).
I will suggest some TERRA fees to be burnt [say 2.5%] whenever any conversion takes place either way!
This way you never introduce any new TERRAs anywhere & preserve the current price at least, and add extra value from burn fees.
This can be done over any other chain which will help extending TERRA reach all over crypto ecosystems.
That’s exactly what I was talking about. I think this could be done ina safe contract and automated so people can come from other chains and we would bennefit of capital provided by new users interested in TP.
I see good potential in this.
I wouldn’t just burn but save % to CP so we can later on pay for new developments like this one. If this is implemented in TP as a feature, connected with treasury, the tokenomics aspect would be already solved.
One could raise the question of what the point might be in presence of Bridges?
The answer is that being on native networks gives all exchanges/traders the advantage of moving the Tokens around freely without the tedious process of converting back & forth to accommodate wallets and exchange processes which is often seen as a repellent and discouraging element in trading in general.
It is a big advantage particularly to those who wish to arbitrage or trade on a specific network to their convenience!
The aforementioned initiative will inevitabley increase demand for TERRA to cover liquidities on other networks as well as boost the demand side for new entries.
