What the token does?

As we discusse about airdrops and « who gets what », I think we should talk about what the token does. That’s why I launch this conversation.

An example : Across token gives you a fees reduction when you use the bridge, xAcross (think xSushi) gives you voting power and a share of the fees.

Let’s talk about it ! We want to hear you !


AcrossIt is to build a DAO and become a community governance token, not to use it as gas, so I don’t agree with you, on the contrary AcrosdDAO, it will have more uses

Need tokens to attract users

Thanks for starting this discussion. To me this is the most important discussion to have with regards to tokenomics. There is no point in airdropping a token that does nothing. So first and foremost we should think about and decide on what the token will do.

Here’s my 2 cents:
Governance: Establish a governance framework by granting discission making to across token holders (i.e. voting power)
Fees: Establish utility to the token (rather than it being just a governance token) by either giving fee reductions when using the bridge or a share of the fees generated by the bridge.
Safety module: Staked across tokens will act as a collateral of last resort, to provide insurance against shortfall events. Stakers will get staking rewards. (see AAVE and DYDX for examples).


Need tokens to attract users . I agree with it

I think we should bump up the fees for using the bridge by a small % but if you stake X amount of the token then fees come back down to the original %, and if you stake even more you become eligible for profit share and all the usual stuff that comes with a govenunce token.

1 Like

Imho there is no point in holding the Across token for fees reduction. I imagine a tipical Across user will not bridge all the time, just looking at the general roadmap/POV that Eth mainnet is becoming solely/mostly just the settlement layer, already in the coming months ppl will use more frequent L2s and withdraw back sometimes.


I propose the Across token to accrue fees for holders instead.

1 Like

Surely the more utility the better and i’m sure Across will have to go L2 to L2 in the end

1 Like

I think that token is needed for the DAO in the first place. It is not even necessary that it have economic value in the form of receiving % from commissions for the interaction of other users with the protocol. First of all, a token is a symbol. The more successful the project is, the more people want to be involved in it through the token.

1 Like

I would suggest that a part of the fees goes to the DAO treasury, and so increment value of DAO token. On the other hand I also consider that if the token is used to pay fees those fees get burned after that.

There are lots of L2 to L2 bridges already. Imho Across is unique in that sense and should aim to be the Go-To for fast+secure L1 withdrawals. There will always be a need for L1 withdrawals, even if Ethereum becomes mostly just an execution layer.

1 Like

That’s not true go look at Ribbon finance and their token launch people bought and it non-stop gets called a useless govenunce token, Ribbon is very successful with about $200m TVL but the token price don’t reflect that

Completely agree with /u/fojo’s post above - this is an important discussion regarding the token launch.

Would the token be used strictly for governance, to pay out fees, or as a safety module? These do not necessarily have to mutually exclusive, and it’s possible that the token could incorporate all three - but as far as emission and distribution goes, it’s pretty important to make at least one a priority.

If choosing a governance route, liquidity incentives and a safety module could also be implemented at a later stage via a proposal. But this would remain subject to a vote, which could take some time to pass.

On the topic of liquidity incentives, these will likely remain temporary in order to bootstrap liquidity though there are plenty of examples of where artificially incentivizing usage has led to users with short-term outlooks farming these pools and draining the liquidity afterwards.

As far as using the token to incentivize usage goes, one approach could be to provide a gas fee rebate to users that bridge from L1 → L2 using the Arbitrum/optimism native bridge and bridge back to L1 using Across. This could be implemented similarly to Balancer’s gas fee rebate: [Proposal] Balancer Exchange Gas Reimbursement - Proposals - Balancer

We could get creative with some ways in order to incentivize usage rather than only incentivizing the LPs (as they will receive a fee of the transaction either way).


Maybe so. Indeed, in our time, the success of the project for the crowd is the endless rise in the price of the token. And if the price of a token does not grow infinitely, then they begin to call it “useless governance token”. But if the project starts to hype and the price rises, then it abruptly turns into an “incredibly useful governance token”.

1 Like

Tokens will attract some early users, which is necessary!At the initial stage of the project, it is necessary to attract users by token airdrop and distinguish real users.

Acrosit is to establish a Dao and become a token of community governance. However, empowering and offsetting gas is a good suggestion, which can prevent members from throwing it out too early. However, it also has some disadvantages., if it is a gas, will it affect the development of community autonomy? But if it is only from the perspective of token, the more successful across is, the better the development of Dao will be, Of course, it will attract more people to participate

1 Like

But there will be other protocals/bridges to move funds from L2 to L1, so Across needs to atract users to use Across and maybe to hold Across token. Maybe, like someone before montioned, having Across token will give you some fee reduction or something like that.

1 Like

What about giving the holders of the token , despite a fee reduction , a share of the fee according to their holdings?

That would functionally be an ‘x’ token, like xSushi, dQuick, etc. On the legal end it creates regulatory questions because it resembles a security. But it is a more functional mechanism for facilitating adoption/use.

1 Like