ICX instead of ICE as the native token of the ICE sidechain

Hi guys,

I’ve read all about the planned future for ICON and it’s very exciting.
I like the upcoming focus on interoperability and I think the idea of having DAPPS on a separate sidechain is good.

However, I’m confused as to why we need another separate token for the ICE sidechain instead of using the ICX token (probably some pegged version of it which could obviously be easily implemented using the BTP).

I’d like to offer that we use the ICX token for both the ICON network and the ICE network mainly for the following reasons:

  1. user experience: it’s much simpler for a user who wants to interact with the functions of both to own and use one token instead two.
  2. Due to the network effect - the economic value of a single token with many use cases would be significantly greater than the economic value of multiple tokens each with its own unique use case (meaning: the value of a single token ICX > the value of ICX + ICE)

Is there really a fundamental reason to favor two tokens?
Maybe I’m missing something, would love to hear the P-REPs/team opinion and considerations.

Good idea.

As mentioned above, there is also a way to use only icx without issuing ice. However, since it is said that ice is already airdropped, I think it is better to airdrop it and not issue it after that.

Below are my other comments.

I also thought about improving the BTP economy and icx value.

1.BTP Economy

How about making BTP profit simpler? (Mining feeling)

For example, if the profit of BTP is 10, then CPS:2
Future Development Fund: 1
BTP Relayer: 7

BTP relayers earn more by the amount of icx they have.

I think people like simple things.

  1. Improving the value of icx
    Meanwhile, I personally think that the key currency (?) of the Icon network will be icx. That’s why I think it’s more valuable to set the icx supply completely immutable like Bitcoin.

my opinion

  1. Half-life method.

  2. Fixed additional supply (for example, if the total issuance of icx is 500 million, only 10 million additional issuance every year)
    -Inflation starts with 2%, but the total issuance increases every year, and the additional issuance is fixed, so the inflation rate continues to decrease.

But, Personally, fertility rates are declining and the epidemic is getting worse. also human lifespan is increasing.
I think the half-life is good, given that the world’s population who can work will decrease. In any case, it should be in the direction of reducing the amount of additional issuance.

In order to do the above two things, we have to reduce the total staking supply.
However, as the reward decreases, the value of icx itself increases.

Or there is a way like this.

Staking icx = icx + ice reward

After this airdrop, ice will not be issued other than the method obtained through icx staking.
You need to stake icx to get ice.

That is, even if you only have icx, icx + ice + voting reward + air drip reward + other (additional network coin reward, air drip, air drop, etc.)

This has been my personal opinion so far.

We can’t use ICX for the ICE network block rewards because the ICE Network can’t have control over minting new ICX tokens. When a block is produced on ICE and when people stake on ICE, we need a reward. That reward can’t be ICX, because ICX supply is only controlled by the ICON Network.

That is why we allow people to stake ICX to earn ICE

2 Likes

@Benny_Options Thanks for the reply.

I see what you mean - In this case there’s no problem that the ICE network manage its own issuance but what if we call the issued token iceICX and make it redeemable 1:1 for ICX thusly making it effectively equivalent/fungible (similar to how BTC and WBTC work).

This is not technically complicated since it only requires a portion of the issued ICX on the ICON network (proportional to the ICX staked for the ICE network) to be deposited into a smart contract which would allow to redeem the iceICX for the that ICX at any time in the future.

IMO it even makes more sense that when you stake ICX you wouldn’t really need to choose as you’ll get either ICX or iceICX - which has the same value.

I really want ICON to succeed and I think that due to the network effect - one token (or two tokens with one pegged to the other which is the same) would get higher traction and price over two tokens. Don’t you agree?

If ICE tokens are redeemable for ICX it’s the same thing as just issuing more ICX. Calling it iceICX doesn’t make a difference haha. When somebody redeems the iceICX for ICX, where would the ICX come from? It would need to be minted, and therefore ICE blockchain would be controlling the issuance of ICX, which is difficult and something we’d want to avoid.

1 Like