Token Swap Proposal

This is a placeholder for the upcoming token swap proposal.

The first proposal passed successfully signals the networks interest in unifying through a token swap.

We will respond via this thread with future updates. In the meantime, for real time discussions around governance, proposals, and enigma politics. Join


Hi all -

Wanted to chime in on some tools for facilitating swaps in a decentralized fashion and crosschain - and it’s native to your Cosmos SDK.

What is Supernova?

Supernova is a Cosmos Zone, built using the Cosmos SDK, that is dedicated to performing lockdrops for BTC, ETH and ATOM holders, and eventually other tokenholders who are awarded DUST as well. As IBC is built, Supernova will also be bridged to other zones and chains.

As it supports ETH, it can support the ENG ERC-20 – perhaps signal your ENG for zero duration or go further with timelocks.

Over at Commonwealth Labs, we designed the original lockdrop- and we’re confident that it supports the creation of utility tokens regardless of the original asset due to the decentralized distribution specs that are produced. In the original Edgeware lockdrop, Validators can choose to run a spec generated by the decentralized process, or unite on separate terms; and that leaderless launch process helps ensure community alignment and control - and perhaps compliance benefits as well. To be clear, I am not an attorney, but we have done significant due-diligence on this, and launched Edgeware under the same research, also targeting the Ethereum ecosystem.


We are finally ready to share the current draft version of our proposal “Burn ENG for SCRT!”.

Please give your feedback here or on the git issue.


I can volunteer as a validator to help with the swap and waive the 1% fee to validators in the proposal.


Code for the eng side looks good contingent on minter code.
I’d still like more detail on where the 1% for validators came from.

1 Like

It exists to provide an incentive for participation from all parties required for a swap to even be possible. There is no other additional context.

How was that number picked?

1 Like

It’s a draft number and can potentially change. It was picked mostly in a vaccum because few of the required parties are even speaking on the matter. We believe this number will suffice.

I don’t think it matters much though to be honest. People talk about ENG supply as if the other half is locked up. All 150 million ENG is currently circulating. There is no enforced lockup at all and it’s already fully diluted. Based on that, these numbers still keep total supply / circulating supply of SCRT below ENGs.

I mean, my question is ‘why do you think a lower number won’t suffice’ – have people said this was their lower bound?

1 Like

It was picked in a vaccum @Avret. If you come up with something better for incentives able to quickly get this to happen we are indeed listening. Do you have an alternative suggestion that you think would sufficiently incentivize action? We are listening.

Incentivize? Why do they need more incentives? They are already getting 100,000 tokens. How much more incentivizing do they need? Seems more like a power grab than anything.

‘raise inflation by 2% after a swap, cut it by 5-7% before a swap’
now there’s an incentive to make it happen quickly and make it happen, it’s net positive for validators to sign, and it rewards everyone. Boom.


Yes this makes more sense as an incentive.

Do you think i personally have the power to change inflation without consensus?

You want to get the network going and incentivize? Then get community members who actually care about the project and network become validators. Don’t get those looking for a power grab to be your validators.

1 Like

To the same extent you have the power to propose one off inflation, yeah. Making inflation separate from other params in terms of difficulty is imo not empirically accurate

Im going to state this again and then only respond to helpful comments going forward.

The community is working hard on making the swap happen and we want your feedback on the plan “Burn ENG for SCRT!”

Please understand the following.

  1. Enigma cannot pay for the swap, comment on the swap, or be involved.

  2. We do not claim our proposal is perfect and flawless. We merely assert our belief that through our proposal a swap can be achieved.

  3. We will absolutely welcome all constructive criticism and any suggestions that will help improve the plan.

  4. We already know that the plan will work on a technical level, provided all required parties participate.

  5. We are exclusively interested in what gets the swap done. Without a community swap it is our belief that a swap will essentially never happen.

I encourage anyone who actually cares about getting this to happen to roll up their sleeves and either meaningfully help us improve our plan or come up with their own plan that will work. We are chosing the method we think will enable it to happen sooner than later.

1 Like

to be clear about my stance here – I like most of the plan, I’m just not sure I agree that this is the best incentive structure to get a swap done and get validator voices involved (in particular, I think it doesn’t disincentivize passivity enough)

Actually – let me put this in public: if this proposal gets signatures rapidly when put on chain, I withdraw my concerns :slight_smile:

1 Like

I have been lurking for some time now and got on here just to ask you to shut the fuck up or help. You have been around for a while but you never do anything useful for the community. What is one thing you have done to help at all ever? Lets make this swap happen and not take a year.

1 Like