I still don't see why HydraDX( like protocol) should be responsible for it, instead you should talk to the differents groups of users and find the instrested on each parachain
As I mentioned, what we can do is take all the necessary security measures, which are just being applied, we are on the right track
I see what @Stake Plus is getting at with the proposal, and I think it makes sense from a practical standpoint. Putting $10,000 towards Bifrost tokens isn't just about buying tokens; it's a strategic move to spread risk. We're essentially looking to allocate a small amount to help monitor what's going on with Bifrost and keep things stable.
Delegating to Chaos DAO and providing a stipend is, in my view, a sensible way to ensure that the investments are being watched over. We're not talking about big numbers here, but the $8k investment, coupled with the $2k for monitoring services, could go a long way in preventing potential losses with the $1m vDot investment.
I get @Jose Crypto concern, but I don't think this is about HydraDX trying to be the guardian of everything. It's more about protecting what we're putting into Bifrost. The $10k downside seems minimal compared to the potential upside of protecting a much larger investment.
So, yeah, I'm in favor of this. It seems like a smart, practical move that reflects our interest in being cautious with our investments. Let's not overthink it; this is about common-sense protection of what we're putting into the Bifrost ecosystem.
In these parachains there are people who get involved with the respective parachains and participate as agents and eyes that are mentioned so much in Governance, HydraDX does not have to do it. That what it is
At least me, like user i do with several parachains that im interested
I don't really understand why HydraDX needs to participate in Bifrost governance on its own. The argument that HydraDX is minting vDOT and needs to participate in governance to protect their investments puts Bifrost in a vulnerable position. It is a controversial sentiment that Bifrost can provide a liquid staking solutions but cannot protect their governance. Should other chains acquire BNC tokens? Perhaps the Ethereum community needs to protect the vETH token and participate in governance as well, and etc.
Partnering with HydraDX and participating in the Hydrate your Treasury initiative does not require other parachains to participate in HydraDX governance. The HydraDX community and protocol take responsibility and precautionary measures to prevent any potential governance or any other potential attack vectors. This should be the case for every other parachain in the ecosystem. We don't need to make things more complicated.
On top of that, as the volume and activity on the HydraDX chain continue to rise over time, a significant amount of BNC tokens could accumulate in POL. These tokens could potentially be used for Bifrost governance. So, why not consider this possibility?
Edited
If you advocated for HydraDX to get some parachain tokens to increase their POL owned LP withing omnipool I could understand.
I don't see why every parachain would have such power over each other, though. Especially that doing this now would give substantial power in decision making against acquiring tokens when there is more users on Polkadot.
In any case I think we could do something of a higher interest for HydraDX with these funds, like staking HDX or DOT, or increasing POL LP shares in the Omnipool, funding projects or granting bounties...
Just my opinion, I'd be curious to hear about the community.
Although I understand the vision of this, I do not agree that HydraDX is the one who should be aware of the entire ecosystem and be buying tokens from each listed parachain to be the "guardians"
from our perspective we can apply various security measures such as oracles, xcm rate limiter, weight caps etc. And That's is already being done 🙌