A Multichain Strategy and Roadmap for Maker

Have you considered the “Rainbow Bridge” architecture that NEAR protocol uses to bridge to Ethereum? I looked into it a bit few weeks back.
I believe its more decentralized and does not require custody like most bridges.
They use smart contracts to lock up a certain amount of tokens on both sides of the bridge. Kind of like a vault on each side of the bridge.
This accommodates for each L1’s own attributes. As in, NEAR can still use their own primitives.
My viz attached.

1 Like

I think there’s already Dai on NEAR using this Rainbow bridge

Hi Derek,

I would love to speak to you about this proposal,

I come from an ecosystem that is EVM compatible and has a ‘L2’ solution that is about to be released.

Personally, I am interested in forking Makerdao to grow the ecosystem there, however, I see no point in creating yet another stable coin which is not vastly adopted, i.e. it is better to just issue DAI…

The project would mostly target coins not supported by makerdao and has a very secure way in doing so.

Overall, it will follow the philosophy and methods of Makerdao, but not necessisarily to the fullest, this is because for example, makerdao aims to only integrate coins which are:

  • Uncorrelated with major cryptocurrencies
  • Large marketcap
  • Lots of demand for credit using that collateral.
  • As decentralized as possible

Therefore, I wouldn’t expect it to be a move of makerdao? but the allowance through cooperation of issuing DAI’s through this project?

We have the devs and resources to make this happen, but the preference is to work with makerdao to issue DAI.

Would also like to talk directly too, if possible.

Out of curiosity; what’s the name of this “EVM compatible ecosystem”?

Sounds good Sir–but what do I do with my DAI once I get to NEAR? Any apps, Farms, AMM, etc.? Also, what wallets are y’all using over there?–last one I look at was a browser based “pain in the arse” wallet.

Hello! Absolutely, let’s setup a call to explore the opportunities, I’ve sent you a message.

2 Likes

Representing Ren here (we work on Multichain infrastructure): the concerns and opportunities raised here are spot on.

The multichain future is a given. Even if Ethereum remains the core crypto platform and is able to scale, there will always be users and projects drawn to other chains for any number of reasons (speculative yield activities, crypto-cultural differences, national influences), and there is a clear opportunity for MakerDAO to serve users on these other chains and benefit from that. And it certainly isn’t clear how a complex system like MakerDAO should tackle all the security and UX issues around serving multiple chains/shards/layers.

Relevant to the topics brought up here, we at Ren are wondering whether we should adapt to MakerDAO’s needs, because very soon we’ll allow arbitrary token movement across smart contract chains we support, and we will obviously be promoting that functionality to crypto users. Which includes allowing folks to bridge DAI to those chains.

We are currently expanding the number of smart contract chains we support, currently have Ethereum, BSC, Polygon, Fantom, and Avalanche up, and adding support for Solana, Arbitrum, and a few Polkadot parachains in the next weeks. Arbitrary token movement for us will come sometime this summer. (And RenVM will become substantially more decentralized over the summer and following months, if anyone is worried about that).

Then we can:

  • move DAI wherever
  • move collateral assets to whichever chain Maker is possibly deployed on for DAI minting
  • (additionally we’re working on adding support for developers to deploy contracts on top of RenVM directly, so you can for example have a contract that listens for events on one chain and then executes an action on another chain, which perhaps is useful)

We’re super keen on hearing what kind of needs MakerDAO has, even if you don’t want to specifically use Ren for something, because that helps calibrate us to devs’ needs in general.

11 Likes

Hey @MaxRoszko , thank you for commenting. We are following Ren with excitement and we will be glad to discuss in details with your team how we can all support Multichain World. Right now the main concern for us is fungibility (or lack of thereof) of bridged tokens. For example, if I move my BTC through Ren bridge to Ethereum, I get renBTC. I can then move it to Polygon through their PoS bridge - I will get renBTC on Polygon. However this is not the same renBTC that I would get if I moved BTC directly to Polygon. Ideally we would like to work towards the solution when natively minted DAI and bridged DAI are fully fungible. This is possibile if we, as MakerDAO community, work with bridge providers but we do need standards and shared understanding of the problem.

11 Likes

Completely agree on fungibility being a core issue. We faced this ourselves recently:

We let users bridge to chains like Ethereum and Polygon, but before we put up our bridge to Polygon, people started moving ETH-renDOGE over to Polygon using the PoS bridge.

That PoS-renDOGE version is not compatible with our bridge, you can’t redeem it on Polygon to native DOGE, you have to exit back to Ethereum and then use RenBridge on Ethereum. That’s extremely bad and confusing UX. And then the PoS-renDOGE got liquidity incentives by Sushi and we had to contact them to get things sorted, but even when that is switched over to the proper renDOGE version, there is a bunch of ‘bad’ renDOGE on Polygon and we can’t force users to exit, the only thing we can do now is educate.

We need standards that most crypto projects can agree on, to prevent these mishaps that will only be more frequent I suspect. Even if that coordination will be hard. We at Ren are definitely onboard for discussions on that and want to help out any way we can.

4 Likes

I was suggesting using a similar approach to other chains that are EVM compatible for DAI.

Not from the NEAR community. You’ll have to ask someone who is from there about farms etc. I’m just an enthusiast about the tech, eco & inner workings. The suggestion was to use a similar architecture as the Rainbow bridge on other EVM compatible chains as it is non-custodial, quicker to snip up and reduces SPOFs with custodial bridges.

I think deploying Maker protocol on their chains is a high priority. Solona, for example, will likely see an explosion of real world assets tokenized to it’s base chain, with FTX already having custody of Fortune 500 shares in offshore subsidiaries and trading on FTX.com. SBF already signaled plans to launch these assets to Solona. Maker has a big competitive advantage with DAI being go-to decentralized stablecoin, but a Solona competitor could easily start taking share when real world assets issue there. If Maker pre-emptively deploys in this and other chains, we have a good chance of remaining the preferred credit facility.

Hi @Derek ,
I am from the Meter.io team. We recently launched an N-way blockchain router and helped AMPL to launch the multichain version of AMPL. In addition to asset transfer, it also supports RPC-like communications for smart contracts across chains.
There are ways to design the architecture so that the Maker community has 100% control over the bridged DAIs and retains fungibility. Would love to talk directly regarding this.