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:
- 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.
- 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.