Thoughts on 'Register Coin' Proposals

Hi all,

As you know, we are starting to register new tokens to f(x)EVM via Governance proposal (type: Register Coin). The first batch of proposals are #13-#16 to register DAI, EURS, LINK, and C98.

These proposals are live for 14 days and will be implemented if it is reached 40% Quorum.

I personally have a thought regarding this matter. More tokens will come to the Function X ecosystem and we might need to vote for more ‘Register Coin” proposals. All proposals will take 14 days voting period and followed by the integration (based on the governance voting result). It might be inefficient if we have 50+ tokens coming to the ecosystem.

There are two solutions to improve this proposal:

  1. Merge all “Register Coin” proposals by batches.
    For example, we merge 5 tokens per proposal. It will save community members’ time and effort to vote for the proposal.
    -The voting will be per batch, not per token.
    -It is not supported by the current version and we will need some time to implement this upgrade.

  2. Reduce the proposal duration from 14 days to 7 days (Open for discussion)
    By implementing this, we can shorten the voting and implementation time.

  • Currently voting takes 14 days and a token will be added to the f(x)EVM. With shorter voting time, there will be a maximum 4 batches of proposals, instead of 2.
  • The shorter voting time will only be implemented for ‘Register Coin’ proposals.

The second option is open for discussion and I would like to hear your thoughts. I think 7 days will be enough for community voting, but let me know if you have other ideas.

There will be a governance proposal to implement this parameter change.

Thank you.


Personally, I’m in favor of listing every token = more use case. FunctionX just takes too long to vote, especially when running for each token/coin individually. We must become faster and more flexible.
Best Regards


i prefer security over fast proposal

1 Like

I would prefer to reduce voting time for “register coin” proposals to 7 days, so option 2.

Batching would also have risk that among the batch of 5 coins there could be coin(s) you dont want to see registered.


14 days voting is not too long

I agree with shortened to 7 days. 14 days is too long.

And for batch, I think we can categorize it.

For example,
[USD-collateralized Stable coin] /
[Crypto/Real asset-collateralized Stable coin(like DAI)] /
for alts, categorize by Marketcap or L1/L2/NFT/DEFI

Like this, if we have some criteria for merging batches, can help avoid risk.

1 Like

The category is a good idea, and the point from @Jan is also valid. See below.

1 Like

I agree with 7days period. In batches is complicate as Jan said

1 Like

I propos that maybe new one proposal section for listing tokens exclusive

The batch risk will be eliminated if a coin poll is created like how exchanges or listing procedures do it all time, either based on popularity or activity.

Top-voted coins, decided either by the foundation or community, will get priority to get into the next batch.

This way, there is no token that is unwanted because the poll has already filtered the unwanted coins.

Every batch should get a new poll, and the top 5 voted coins will get priority for that specific batch.

And since there has to be liquidity for any coin that gets in, maybe it would be wise for the foundation to decide instead of the community.

And since votes tend to get manipulated by spam accounts, the internal team should decide to avoid future problems, at least for this early stage of Function X. :thinking:

Either way, I’m fine with single or batch. :+1:

A pre coin poll can be manipulated by spam accounts also.
In fact more then actual proposal i guess, since validators weight heavy on the voting.

The only way to avoid “spam” votes, is single coin proposals.

I had same thoughts about the voting proces of coins in general and to NOT go through proposals, but just decided by foundation.
But dont know if that is “cursing in church” (as we say in Holland) considering the decentralisation standpoint :grin:


As far as I’m concerned, I think 14 days is not that long, and that each coin should follow thorough proposals process.


I agreed the 7 days. 14 days too long.

1 Like
  • Nobody seems to point out that previous proposal(s) wasn’t or weren’t completed in 7 days.
    Too many validators haven’t voted in previous proposals (on time).

  • Secondly I would like to vote for or against a coin or let my validator vote for or against. On the other hand I would not like to vote every week for yet another coin…

1 Like

Sum the batches not really best idea, as for some assets can be seen are potential risk or malicious for some reason or another. (I hardly disagree with this addition)

Since we have very active public validators community I think shortening the time frame for it isn’t bad idea.

We have good equilibrium in voting power (need more voting power for reputed public validators not public foundation’s validators) , so Incase of any malicious act from validators things can be maintained at fast pace.


I remember about 4/3 years ago, many of us wished, discussed and shared mutual understanding of having the top 100 projects listed on the XPOS.

I think we’re at this stage finally :blush: Congrats to everyone.

I think it’s kinda safe to suggest we still need the top 100 or 50 projects, or further down line we will have to anticipate new projects emerging with a bang to the space, but that’s another matter, for now.

My point is that, the batches of tokens proposed won’t be a much of security risk as we know household names and the top 100, or maybe top 200 on cmc by heart given the time we spent in the space.

A side idea could be the categories we have on cmc already, nft tokens, iot, meme batches, metaverse, storage, Defi, etc etc but can get tricky when going deeper into ecosystems eg Avalanche eco or bnb eco structure set up.

Just remembered- The aim was to assimilate all, resistance is futile, was the aforementioned star trek slogan back 3/4 years ago.

7 days is fine and just about right, considering the public validators are all intertwined, very active and have been voting on behalf of all delegators within a day or two max, and all the time apart from a few odd balls, this is where the team vote counts and can make up for it.

If only the team validators were more swift with theirs, we will pass with flying colours in no time.

I think we as a community and foundation, know funny funky token/projects from proper projects.

Other points I hadn’t the time to comment is the lack of coverage or spike in recognition or price appreciations, from these listing from the wider communities in the space. Do we need to do something about this…? Because I remember having a Wallet upgrade used to be a thing, it used to spike the price and wider audiences drawn, another example were the exchange listing.

XPOS can imo try to attract this buzz via some kind of marketing or something… (maybe telegram ama in these anticipated token batches, encouraging them to vote as well to get their coin listed on these global merchants device. They should be chasing the XPOS to list, not US chasing them to list… That’s where we want to be…

In short, (too late) I just don’t want us to miss this opportunity to capture more people into px/fx ecos and list them with other measures to ensure we can maximise awareness and wallet holders.

Thanks for reading.


Validators may need email newsletter or something to remind them, maybe fx app notifications as extras. I am note sure, but as @ive said not all voted on time, perhaps a bit relaxed with the 2 weeks period.

If I am not mistaken (don’t recall clearly) I think all coin listing got voted quick…

1 Like

best idea , I agree with you :+1:

1 Like

Hi @Superbit123 .
We should soon have a solutioning DApp to accelerate proposals voting without any change. In this case, the shortening to 7 days will make sense.
But I think it’s a little bit too early for now… Just a matter of weeks or some months…
Sorry if I can’t tell more about it right now. I prefer to keep the surprise. :wink:

Hey Frenchxcore, thanks for the trailer. I really hope it comes much sooner :grinning:

It’s really thrilling to know things are being developed outside of the core team. I hope more talented individuals like yourself or teams onboard both fx/px ecos.

The new fx wallet will be ready soon to allow Dapps, also that will be ready and even polished for you by the time when you have enough free time to complete your project/s. Look forward to them.

Can i ask (a random question out of curiosity), what is your most desired feature or service you would like to see on FXCore /fxwallet…

1 Like

Thx @Superbit123 .

Right now, my most desired feature would be a “white pages” solution to transfer easily tokens/NFT directly from my smartphone to someone identified in my directory.
That would mean being able to associate/revoke an international phone number to a public key (ETH, FX, etc.)