Barnbridge on other chains: BSC, DOT, ATOM, SOL, ICP

Community often talk about launching a Barnbridge on other chains as well. Of course, launching our protocol on other chains could be only reasonable when there is a yield that we can connect to, but what if there already is? Smart Yiled is obviously dependant on yield, but when we launcch Smart Exposure and Smart Alpha, it can be used on its own.

I started this topic to discuss a broader possibilities for us to launch on other chains.

There are essentially three things that I currently have on my mind:

  1. We should monitor projects on chains such as BSC, DOT, ATOM, SOL, ICP. Yield and lending and borrowing platforms already exist on several chains of this selection.

  2. We should make sure that we are the first project on the chain that will focus on risk management. We should not let a foreign community fork our code and benefit from it.

  3. Launching Barnbridge on the next chain will be a benefit not only to the DAO treasury but especially to the attention of the BOND token and the project in general. If you become a central player with risk management across chains, then we are set to be a truly agnostic platform that will already have its place in DeFi across chains.

In general these other “ETH killers” (we all know is not that easy and not true right now) we should take that seriously cause they just have traction.

I’m not the technical type, but I had an internal obligation to put this topic on the table so that we could start discussions and, when it came in time, start barnbridge on another chain.


Why didn’t you mention Polygon/Matic? Seems to be the most obvious chain to launch (besides Ethereum) for SMART Exposure.

Problem with some other chains is that they are not decentralized. Retail doesn’t care but TradFi does. They are bound by regulations and will not be allowed to invest on BSC chain for example. We could launch there, and the kids can play with it, fine.
SOL is mostly VC coin (they have big bags of coins, correct me if I am wrong) + centralized nodes running.

If we can run a ‘light’ version on other chains that’s fine. Multi-chain governance & rewarding pools with BOND is complicated and not desirable.
Launching on other chains should be viewed as a test case for input to improve our product. If its done just because of FOMO, then no.


Yop Matic has high preference in terms of scaling (L2/sidechain) but I rather want to talk about other chains.

I absolutelly agree with you about BSC, SOL etc., however, market is growing and like I said, we cannot let other community to fork our code and benefit from it on other chains. It is quite a strategic move to be elsewhere, for example Cosmos ecosystem is quite huge already. Polkadot and IC will be big as well. We have to discuss this rather sooner than later. And it is still a matter of discussion, no FOMO to other chains, rather watching them closely and then react.

1 Like

I agree with you. Furthermore we have to be careful with ‘technical debt’. We can’t deploy just on every chain and have people to expect to maintain it. Governance & BOND rewards, integration team’s focus, audits… it all should be on the main chain in my opinion.

That’s what I mean by running a ‘light’ version on other chains. Just basic, no support in terms of active development and promotion from the team itself (community can of course).


Yes that light version first approach is goog imho. In general if we decide one day to launch on other chain, it will be in phases I guess. We can’t launch on 4 chains in parallel indeed.


Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next.

Personally not a fan on expanding onto other chains, especially centralised ones. (with the exception of looking into matic/xdai).

-Development resources are scarce and should be concentrated on smart exposure & alpha as I see the latter one in particular as a unique alternative to present non-stable collateral solution (i.e. <x1 leveraged eth price exposure to lend against)

-I don’t see a huge demand for risk structuring products on chains that have a user pool that prioritises low fees & convenience over security & decentralisation. (BSC in particular)
(the only chain 'd deem worth considering Atom because of Terra/Luna adoption)

-Seeing the recent discussions on discord I have to say that catering to other DAO Treasuries with our sr products might be more more fruitful in the short-to-long run as it is something. (win-win for all partnering treasuries)


Thanks for raising this Homer! One concrete update for you: we’re confident that a Polygon implementation of the AAVE Smart Yield pool will be an easy lift once the ETH Mainnet version is finalized.

Re: other chains, I will say that our dev teams have their bandwidth largely booked for the next 2-3 months. That said, while our focus is on product development at the moment, we are actively looking into EVM-compatible options that could amount to easier lifts. We are yield maximalists first, and so it’s important that the community knows that we don’t have blinders on.

Now for the fun part, my personal opinions! I think that there will be a significant blue ocean opportunity within the interoperable chain space. I say “interoperable chain” because as Compound Chain development is showing, they’re using elements of both Polkadot and Cosmos to build their appchain. While I don’t see Ethereum losing its leading position for deep liquidity anytime soon, I do believe regulatory and technological developments will result in app chains being popular front end options for accessing the markets that exist on Ethereum.

My focus at the moment is on secondary market design for juniors and seniors, but I’m looking forward to thinking through other chains in Q3.


SHILL ALERT: I’d love to add Energy Web Chain (EWC) to the list for consideration within the next 2 years.

Polkadot parachain backed by Google, Shell, Vodafone and other large energy players.

Thanks for bringing this up Homie!

1 Like

I am a fan of utilizing multiple chains and it is no secret that we pair well with the likes of SNX and AAVE - so following their lead just makes sense. My concern is that TVL / capital invested is basically how we market ourselves with respect to protocol trust and overall usage. Maybe a simple UI change that reflects Barnbridge across all chains would help alleviate, but I am not sure.

Expanding to Polygon seems like a decent first step given that it’s not extremely resource-intensive. For now, though, I believe it’s best for the team to focus on rolling out and expanding currently planned products as well as investing in growth of BOND in the DeFi and general crypto community.

I would like to also voice support for @LeMayMay, I believe the recent discussions about attracting large DAO Treasuries to participate in Senior SY is a fantastic idea.


I’m not a big fan of other chains, but they are here and we shouldn’t ignore it. Maybe there are people who would like to use BarnBridnge products but they do not want to pay the fees like a lot of retail Defi users.

The other thing is that we want TradFI, Institutions and DAO’s as our primary customers and this kind of customers do not mind to pay ETH fees and I suppose they prefer security and decentralization on ETH network. We should focus to build on ETH and L2 but I also don’t want to see forks of BarnBridge. Good to have this topic here so we could talk about it. Some kind of light BarnBridge version for retails on other chains does not look like bad idea.