[Poll]: full OMNI to ERC20 swap

I would let Harmen speak for himself, but we did speak after he went through that (as we weere considering it seriously at that time) and it was not simple at all. It seems it was a lot of work and hassle. I think it still is hassle for the guys there. I see posts even now for folk to swap and I know the guys have to do work.

Then the risk of that server getting hacked etc. must be hellish.

No worries at all.

I wonder if Seneca would describe what they did as ‘simple’. I agree with David that the word is often bandied about without understanding, and I find it is frequently misleading.

[Inserts video about those asking an expert to create a system of seven red perpendicular lines, including some green and some transparent]

Yes better if it is not necessary at all. Love to hear other simpler solutions not wedded to any idea here… but slow going even getting the potential looming problem recognised.


My proposal here boils it down to an even simpler technical level. No servers required that was a fancy add-on. Of course hostile UK institutions shoot it down, not technical difficulties.

1 Like


(not the future of finance IMO, SN s/could be).


Interestingly, 63% of voters (people who are actively interested in the project to enter the forum once every 2 weeks) want to receive an alternative full version of the OMNI token.

This raises the question of how we will manage the future of Safe.

Will there be a built-in voting mechanism? Who will make the final decisions after a vote?

Privacy. Security. Freedom

1 Like

I believe there were about 60-80 voters in that poll - no? That means only about 50 users out of the entire forum which must number in the multi-hundreds wanted to commit to the conversion. I don’t consider that an indication of majority support, much less overwhelming support which is what that proposal should garner to proceed, imo.


There are 131 voters. That’s almost twice as many participants (measured in likes) as the weekly dev update resive…

Plus 1/3 of the forum cannot vote because it is not level 1…

Privacy. Security. Freedom

1 Like

So app. 83 voters on the forum out of 561 active over last 30 days felt strongly enough about moving forward to vote yes? Still, not a strong showing given how controversial the conversion has been. Sorry, @Dimitar, I appreciate your efforts, as always (I’m the one that said you should be voted into the Safe Hall of Fame) but I just don’t think the proposal has adequate support to proceed. Far be it from me to throw a monkey wrench into anyone’s plans to do so though. Have at it, but I would say, make sure it is voluntary and will not affect those who choose not to participate.


I don’t think Safe has a future where “we” will manage it.


We are not talking about the technical functioning of the protocol. We are talking about the direction of development. Of course, the community will decide what to run on their computers, so it will be important for developers to know what the community wants.

We are the network. The protocol is strong only as strong as the community behind it. If the community has no voice, then people are just slaves and replace one master for another.

Privacy. Security. Freedom

1 Like

Was just brushing up on Thorchain basics and came across this paragraph which gives another take on why extrapolating CEX trading volume to any possible future DEX liquidity provision is bound to be off by a wide margin. Substitute Bitcoin for Maid…

Under “Billions of TVL on the Sidelines” (TVL: Total Value Locked)

There is currently around $1,000,000,000 worth of Bitcoin wrapped as wBTC on Ethereum, and that number is quickly growing. Why? Because with the rise of DeFi, token holders do not want their assets to sit idly by in cold storage when they could be staking, farming, or providing liquidity in order to generate yield on their assets. Native Bitcoin doesn’t have any DeFi applications, so holders are flocking to Ethereum in order to allow their assets to be productive. But many, many Bitcoin holders are old school, and are adverse to the idea of wrapping their tokens on another chain or interacting with Ethereum at all. There is $200 Billion worth of BTC doing nothing . With THORChain, Bitcoin holders can stake their native BTC . This has not been possible before THORChain, and represents billions of dollars of TVL that can enter the network. The same is true for assets on any other chain – which also represent many more billions of potential TVL, and this is why THORChain represents a breakthrough in decentralized exchanges .

1 Like

Of all the IBC DEX’s I think Gravity is going to be king although Thorchain is getting more attention right now.

Possibly, although I doubt Inter-Blockchain Communication protocol will make it to Omni/Bitcoin anytime soon, so not of much use for this project. Thorchain also will probably never support Omni there are only 99 ThorNodes and they only take “economically viable” cross chain projects. SN is not a chain so SN native will also be unlikely.


I’m trying to understand this better; which part is off by so much, or is it all of it?

If the figures are off by that much, is there any point in coingecko having a list of liquidity and trade volume for dex pairs? If someone more experienced than me were to do an accurate analysis using that data, what would it look like? How would it differ? I’m really curious, because it feels like dex pairs reported with different liquidity should actually have different liquidity, right?

I see what you mean around the motives for liquidity, how it’s not a greed thing, I get that. But I don’t understand why it’s so difficult to get some quantitative measure for the benefit or the cost of moving to a dex (especially the benefit). Any chance of getting some improved numbers? If analysis is not possible or too difficult, why is that?

1 Like

I think @krnelson is talking specifically about our token. Our community is extremely different from the average. 94% of our tokens have been in a cold wallets for over 7 years now.

This is something unique for the crypto world. The mass of holders of MAID does not trust the centralized exchanges because of our bad history with them.

If we have a secure way to provide liquidity, our community will probably provide it. This secure way is a decentralized exchange in my opinion.

Privacy. Security. Freedom


This is exactly how I feel about it. The only difference is that I didn’t vote. I’m still on the fence. If SNtoken is due within a year or so, then NO…otherwise YES.

We really don’t know when the media attacks against us will start (there is against bitcoin, it is reasonable that there will be against us as well).

Depending on when the bad people start using the network, it may even be during the tests. For those who don’t know, 2 years ago we kicked out a pedophile from the forum who was openly promoting himself.

We don’t know how long it will take us to build Fiat bridges to the network before the government bans direct access with CEX (my guess is that this will happen - the world doesn’t know anything like Safe, so it’s reasonable to assume and prepare for the worst. If things turn out pink perfectly for us, I will be very happy).

That is why it is important to act as early as possible in order to attract as many people as possible to the network.

Privacy. Security. Freedom


The figures quoted are fine I am not calling them into question. I am questioning the methodology for extrapolating from the figures to the below estimation:

Sorry I did not explain the position very well I will try again from a different tact as concisely as possible:

Bucket (1): Longer term in development project is only listed on CEXs (like SN).

  • Trading volume on the CEXs is from people who actually want to risk their capital to trade and/or buy and sell at specific price points in the orderbook.
  • Some portion of the activity will be trading bots/wash trading
  • Non-traders, developers and/or people who have already bought in for the long term have heavy incentive to move their tokens off-exchange into cold storage. Given a stable long term project there is excellent case to be made that this will be the vast majority.

Bucket (2): That same project suddenly enables ability to list on liquid DEX like Uniswap (Omni → ERC20 swap for example).

  • The majority of token holders, all those with coins in cold storage, now begin to see they have a new opportunity open to them: There is now an incentive to securely move some of their coins out of deep cold storage to stake and/or provide liquidity and earn a return for doing so on DEXs.
  • This transition is a process. At first the higher risk takers will move some out of cold storage, some will stay in cold storage and others will wait and see and only slowly start participating as they see the all-clear and benefits to doing so are slowly realised. Point is we need some time to pass to see stable results after transition to assess whether there is much benefit or not.
  • This class of people is motivated by very distinct incentive structure to the ones listed in Bucket (1) above.

Bucket (3):

  • As DEX liquidity rises due to (2), new services can now come online such as the Kyber Network
  • New satellite KyberNet/Specialised DEXs/Smaller CEXs piggy back on that permissionless liquidity to start new avenues for trading as the DEX enables their their fee and spread based models to start up whereas before it would not have been possible for them to source liquidity as easily.

Your Methodology assumes Bucket(1) CEX volume incentive == Bucket(2/3) DEX liquidity incentives:

A) You have measured average volume in bucket (1) over a time frame.

B) Compared it to different existing projects that have been in Bucket (2) and (3) for a long time.

Estimated “50% more” ignoring the differences in incentives between the two.

A more accurate methodology would be to:

A) Find enough projects that had been in bucket (1) for at least your chosen averaging time period. For best comparison a longer time development with as little hype and marketing to better establish long term base case CEX volume over that stable period.

B) Compare those same projects against themselves in the future after they have graduated to buckets (2) and (3) for a significant enough period of time.

Run your chosen statistical method over the difference for all those particular projects to arrive at an estimation that is closer to reality.

Tauchain AGRS as last project to throw in the towel on Omni. This is not such a good comparison as they have only been in bucket (2) for a few months. Bucket (3) will be some way off, and the project is pretty small with negligible development (as far as I can see) so the numbers are too small and the time period too short to really draw anything from it. For illustration purposes only:

Green circle: Omni was used a lot more than today, Tether was only available on Omni. Project was newly launched still full of promise, hype and a general bull market underway. Discard this data perhaps only useful to serve as an idea of “what could be again”.

Bucket (1) Red Circle: Years of development, little hype, only available on one CEX: Bittrex. Note that the volume is not very natural looking during first three quarters of this this period. Looks like consistent bots/wash trading. End of period November 2020 volume drops off quite lot and price volatility spikes suggesting all the CEX volume was locked up in a few hands/the float was tiny and easily manipulated. Another reason why this does not make the best example.

Bucket (2) Purple Circle: Full ERC20 swap, Uniswap listing about 3 months ago. Natural looking volume starting to creep back into the project despite no real development announcements or progress that I can find. Price volatility stabilises better suggests price discovery going on perhaps.

Bucket (3) has not arrived for this project yet.

So to sum up: I question the accuracy of taking volume of projects in Bucket(1) the red circle like SN, and comparing it to different projects that have already arrived in bucket (2) and (3) for a significant time period.


As long as it involves a relatively small token it’s relatively simple. I can afford to do manual double checks when validating large transfers or many small ones that appear related or somehow out of the ordinary. MAID is much bigger though, so that would cost a lot of time and be less secure, because it’s a far more tempting target.

As as far as I know, there’s no way to make this process completely decentralised without it being a big cryptographic experiment by itself, so I understand MaidSafe’s hesitation. Personally, I’d rather have them focus solely on delivering SAFE, then we can simply convert all MAID to SafeCoin and be done with this issue.