Migrating/Bridging to a platform with lower gas fees

Author: General Community Member

Summary - To promote inclusion and future proofing for changes in contracts, I propose we find another platform with lower gas fees so that no part of the community will be left behind.

Abstract/Details/Rationale - Many contract changes have been made in a short span since LBP, gas fees are a major concern for many people and excludes a good portion of the community from continuing to support the project. Moving to a different platform is not going to be an easy task and will set us back in terms of development but it will ensure that we do not exclude a portion of our community. To add on, as more changes are made to the staking contract in the future through governance proposals, gradually more and more people will gradually be left out due to gas fees. Instead of creating barriers of entry and discourage long term community members, why not let the community save on these gas fees and instead spend them on more meaningful areas of the project.

Budget - It shouldn’t have much costs but will take up a significant amount of time for researching, developing and implementing.

Voting Options -

  • In favor (Yes)
    or
  • Against (No)

Process -
Step 1: If this proposal passes, there will be a follow up proposal which will detail out the differences between the various low fee platforms such as BSC, Polygon(Matic), etc. This proposal is simply a decision on whether we should stay on the ETH platform and exclude the rest of the community.
Step 2: Once the proposal has passed and a platform has been decided(with another proposal). Work will then commence to migrate the existing contracts over. To give context, what would most likely need to happen is a snapshot and a hardfork(where tokens are airdropped and replaced) once the contracts are ready.

3 Likes

Yes. This is essential. I don’t trust there won’t be more changes to skaking in the future (forcing us to pay gas fees just in order to hodl and keep up with inflation). For small holders that dramatically changes the effective cost. Informed decisions are impossible if the premise for holding keeps changing and is so costly.

Personally I will await a solution before staking again. Preferrably compensation. Might sell. I’m probaly not alone, meaning increased selling pressure due to all this.

Yes. I have done single stake and because of dump in price I felt inclined to move into the olderLP to try and counteract drop. I burned gas 3 times now. Investment about $1k. Gas used so far $300. Total Token price $179. Something need to be done about this.

1 Like

I’m say about same since start mate. Here no sense. But vote sure “For”

I think it’s the only way to save this mess. With this locks, fees and loss of value of the token I won’t even usntake from the old pool, let alone staking in the new. New chain needed Asap. I also proposed this in the previous PIP

Let’s have some meaningful discussions/conversations, as much as the proposal seem to be the only way to salvage the current situation, it would be good to also have some views as to why this proposal may be bad and what other alternatives can be explored. Would love to hear from the bigger holders and core team who can provide more perspectives.

1 Like

Yeah, being on ETH was key for the project launch. And moving forward, especially when we need to start adding more utility for PATH in our ecosystem, we need to exist as well on more gas-friendly chains. I think it’s something the team will look at, without needing a formal DAO vote.

2 Likes