ERC-20 Transition


Yes, whatever it would take to ensure the transaction is confirmed and goes through :slight_smile:


We apologize, as many ideas had been given to us from all directions at the beginning.

What would we have to do, to have GBTS listed on Bancor’s smart contracts?


+1 for an ERC-20 token.
I fear too many people are unfortunately storing and depending on poloniex/bittrex which is a huge counterparty risk, the more exchanges MAID is listed on the better. Unlike STORJ there 100% should be no conversion requirement though, fully optional and worth exactly the same as current maid tokens with burn address to obtain.


Are you:

  • In favour of transition.
  • Against a transition.

0 voters

I would like to note, that a majority vote is not an argument in favour of an idea and vice versa, a minority vote does not disprove one.


One possible issue with your poll is the word ‘transition’, which to me implies moving from one to another & disusing the old token.

I’d propose to add an optional MAID equivalent token in a form that is more affordable to transact & easier to get on exchanges, which is more of an addition than a transition.

This way nobody is inconvenienced, and new functionality is added for those who are currently being inconvenienced.

Not sure if it’s worth somehow adding that option to the poll?


The one issue I have been wondering about is that if there is a new token which is very easy to buy and store, and the old omni token which is slightly more difficult for newcomers, could they not end up trading at different prices?


They may do at times, but they should stay quite close as both will be worth 1 Safecoin in the end, so traders will arbitrage any difference.

This happened when recently SJCX (counterparty) and STORJ (erc20) had big price disparities despite equivalence while both were listed on Poloniex.


It is clear this proposal does not have unanimous support, so status quo should prevail. Else you end up with something along the lines of MaidSafeCoinCash and all the FUD to go with it.


I think the worst possible outcome is two competing currencies (I.e., two currencies with equivalent supply/circulation in tandem). By very nature, this cannot be because when the network launches there should and can only be Safecoin circulation equivalent to the number of MAID that is currently in existence inclusive of early investors’ coins (~600M coins).

Were any sort of transition to take place, people would have to trade the OMNI-MAID they have to get the ERC-20 token. Trading OMNI-MAID would have to be the only way to get the alternative unless someone who had already traded their OMNI-MAID to get the alternative, sold the alternative to you/on an exchange. This would take care of the supply question (I.e., no duplication or inflation of supply). It also would mean that if people didn’t want to trade their OMNI-based MAID for an ERC-20 token, they wouldn’t have to do so. On the day the SAFEnetwork launches, the sum total of OMNI/ERC-20 MAID would still be ~600M coins.

Now, one might ask what if the prices of the two coins diverge? Well, those who would pay more for the ERC-20 token would be doing so for the added convenience of its use and storage. Either they would have to be comfortable with the price correcting to some median between the two coins when the network launches, or the price of the OMNI token would similarly rise because the easier to use ERC-20 token may unmask more of OMNI token’s implicit value.

Once again, I’m not a tech person, so it’s easier for me to theorize what might in actuality be nigh impossible to pull off. Were the above feasible, I see the clear benefits, however.


Yo bro, I would advice you to create a SmartToken so you can also be added to by contacting It does 3 things: give your token holder instant liquidity, your token will get stability and exposure. 4 things actually it gives an decentralized liquidity network, so bye bye exchanges.

But there is also high tx fees, learning how to use metamask and poking around with the TokenRelay.

Email them at, next time I’m asking an advisory fee (because you took 2 months to understand this). It’s true that tokenholders can easily sell your token, but new people can also see it and buy your token, moreover you can have influence on liquidity of your token.

Btw @whiteoutmashups @Gamerbits Bancor is also planning to enable the creation of SmartTokens through their app maybe Q2. I would trust a Maidsafecoin issued by you guys as ERC20 token, that could be exchanged 1:1 with omni tokens. Ethereum’s tx fees are also getting higher. I know that Bancor will be on and that Rootstock enables cheaper tx than Ethereum while having the exact same smartcontract platform.

A borderline crazy idea, is for the SAFE Network projects to run a community SAFE Network and issue tokens on it, that can be exchanged 1:1, problem there won’t be an exchange yet and people might loose their coins or get it stolen. This would attract more people to use SAFE Network’s community environment and hackers to take your money.


I would not advocate for moving on with the proposal simply because it attracted the majority of the vote, or even if it had an unanimous support. That’s why I noted that the resulting vote, whatever it might be, does not constitute of an argument in favour or against the proposal.
I do not want this to be some democratic vote, where the majority rules even if it’s wrong. Instead, I want to stir up a debate and weigh the arguments each side has to present.


My opinion is aligned with a lot of the sentiment expressed already. Omni is easy to understand conceptually, and works with standard btc addresses, is legacy, and “simple” (labeled piece of BTC). Not everyone thinks ethereum or ERC20 is cool, and it doesn’t have the same kind of entrenchment stability that BTC has. So as to the OP, I would vote that the best thing to do is do nothing. If you read dirvine’s blog about what headache’s were involved in the ico you will see the trials and tribulations that were overcome. There is no need to make anyone relive another coin platform initialization or transition unless it is satisfying the direct 1:1 transition from (OMNI) MAID to SafeCoin because the network has launched. And from what I can surmise from bits of information here and there on the forums the maid:safecoin transition is pretty simple/straightforward via omni. Time will tell.


I agree. While ECR-20 might have advantages now there’s no telling what state the platform will be in in six months.


Nor any way of telling what state Omni will be in 6 months time, so staying with a single solution could be more risky.

The chances are that ERC20 will be in a far better place than Omni with regards to transaction cost & speed, ease of access to exchanges, and access to offline storage solutions.

Given what’s happened to Bitcoin transactions recently and the very real cost that will be faced every time any community member wants to fund a CEP project (e.g $3000 or so wasted for every CEP project that’s funded by 100 community members), I’d suggest at least considering whats involved in a measure to diversify away from Omni as long as it’s optional.


would omni work with bitcoin cash? much lower transaction fees


That’s also a cost to anyone who switches to ECR-20, and a risk they will mess up and lose their coins altogether.

The risk of staying with Omni is small - even if it disappears tomorrow, the only effect will be to cause us choose and move to an alternative, so just a risk of a gap in trading. Or we could stay put and wait for SafeCoin depending on where the project is at that point.

That’s the worst case with Omni. Moving risks diverting the team and David, and delaying the project.


Omni aren’t planning to move to any other blockchain as far as I know. Last time Inchecked, they’re certainly aware of the transaction fee issue, but don’t have any clear solutions planned.


NACK to unnecessary confusion and waste of time.

For the ones pointing out that it’ll be good for price: leave Maidsafe coin alone.

Sincerely, Fran.


Spending $30 once to enable many future transactions at $1 or so isn’t a bad idea if someone wants to transact, for example to support the CEPs (though for the CEP, it would make sense to simply use another crypto currency other than MAID & that’ll be solved).

There may be risks, but I’m not aware of anyone losing coins in the STORJ conversion, so don’t see why that risk can’t be mitigated.

Of course nobody wants to distract the core team, so let’s see if there’s a way of doing this without any significant distraction.


it HAS to be possible to use the coinage via transactions or the currency is for all the good it can do, dead.

if the cost of transacting is too high the currency simply won’t be used.

happybeing’s methodology seems pretty sensible as a starter for 10 to me…

rup :slight_smile: