Threshold
Hey @JAMTON ,
From the proposal:
"stTON bridge solution
It’s crucial to provide a simple experience of entering the JAMTON ecosystem for TON
users. Two existing bridges - TON-Ethereum bridge (TonBridge) and Ethereum-Polkadot
bridge (Snowbridge) - will be used to solve the task of delivering TON liquidity to the
parachain. To make seamless transfers possible we have to supplement the infrastructure of
this bridge with two elements: jstTON gateway contract that will handle sending jstTON
through TonBridge to Ethereum network and stTON bridge proxy contract that will relay
tokens arrived to Ethereum to JAMTON via Snowbridge."
Question:
so the initial bridge MVP will be done by moving "jstTON" from Ton to your parachain using snowbridge, will it support all assets on TON or just jstTon?
Also what is jstTon? its a wrapped Ton token?
Dear @JAMTON,
Thank you for your proposal. Our vote on this proposal is NAY.
The Medium Spender track requires a 50% quorum according to our voting policy. This proposal has received zero aye and three nay votes from ten members. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
The referendum faced unanimous opposition, with members criticising the proposal for its unnecessary complexity and unclear benefits. Suggestions included simplifying the mechanism, such as focusing on building a basic bridge for liquidity flow. Concerns were also raised about the proposal's value to the ecosystem, with some suggesting resources might be better allocated to expanding existing initiatives like Telenova.
The full discussion, along with individual members' votes and comments, can be found in our internal voting.
Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Review of JAMTON's Treasury Funding Proposal
After carefully reviewing JAMTON's proposal requesting 78,800 USDT from the Polkadot Treasury and their recent communications, we must decline supporting this funding request.
While we recognize the potential value in bridging Polkadot with TON's significant user base, the current proposal structure raises fundamental concerns about value alignment and Treasury resource allocation.
Our main concerns are:
Economic Model
The proposal effectively seeks Treasury funding to bootstrap a private business venture where all future revenue streams (staking protocols, DEX fees, DOTON token) would be exclusively captured by the project team. No clear mechanisms are proposed for value accrual to the Polkadot ecosystem or DOT holders.
Funding Structure
The Treasury's role is to fund public goods and ecosystem development, not to provide seed capital for private commercial ventures. If the business opportunity is viable as presented, traditional funding routes like venture capital or self-funding would be more appropriate.
Technical Approach
The proposal acknowledges TON's current technical limitations while pursuing aggressive timelines for DeFi integration. This raises concerns about prioritizing quick market capture over sustainable infrastructure development.
Path Forward:
We remain open to proposals that demonstrate clear mutual value creation and appropriate alignment between private initiatives and ecosystem benefits. Projects seeking Treasury funding should either incorporate clear value-sharing mechanisms or focus on developing public infrastructure that benefits the entire ecosystem.
We appreciate the team's engagement with OpenGov and encourage continued dialogue toward models that better serve our ecosystem's long-term development.
Given that the actual bridging will happen through two separate bridges that already function, why do you need a parachain for what you are doing?
As a user, can't I already use the TON<>ETH + ETH<>DOT bridge to bring liquidity over?