Proposal for Experimental Farms on xExchange

Dear xExchange Community,

I’ve been contemplating a proposal regarding the inclusion of experimental farms on xExchange, especially in light of the imminent rework. Before formalizing this proposal, I seek your valuable insights and feedback.

My primary goal is to address the absence of experimental farms on the tab within the xExchange Farm section. Considering the potential benefits, I am exploring the idea of introducing experimental community farms. While I draw inspiration from various community builders, the Super Rare Bears serve as a notable example. It’s crucial to clarify that I don’t speak on their behalf but rather view them as an intriguing use case.

Safety Considerations:
Acknowledging the importance of safety and the long-term vision of making xExchange as permissionless as possible, I understand the necessity for careful implementation. Currently, opening a farm involves allocating a portion of the XMEX supply. However, incorporating experimental tokens raises concerns about implicit xExchange approval.

Qualification Parameters:
Looking ahead, I propose a thoughtful approach to reverse engineer qualifications for builders akin to the Super Rare Bears. This involves considering various factors such as time, transaction history, user engagement, liquidity contributions, and the potential use of locked deposits to balance rewards. I suggest exploring class-based unlocking mechanisms, similar to the Newton and Tesla classes.

Balancing Act:
The approach aims to strike a balance, ensuring that participants, whether established builders or newcomers, demonstrate a genuine commitment. By incorporating class-based unlocking and other criteria, the goal is to prevent misuse while fostering an inclusive environment for smaller builders.

Community Engagement:
This proposal is an open invitation for your thoughts and suggestions. Your insights are pivotal in shaping the direction that is taken. I encourage you to actively participate in the discussion, share your perspectives, and contribute to the evolution of xExchange. Your collaboration is crucial in steering xExchange towards greater heights.

Best regards,


Hey @mattrickswayze !

Thank you very much for your initial proposal! :pray:

Have you more precise thoughts regarding the Balancing Act? Very curious to understand more precisely how it could be done.


Thanks Lucas! I think a common sense approach combined with innovative solutions could work. For example:

  1. An initial xMex deposit for consideration
  2. Application process
  3. Community support assessment - governance & funding if needed
  4. Additional requirements for consideration -liquidity, EGLD staked, strategic implementation within existing ecosystem, support of other builders, commitment of future support, etc.

As a user, I would love the opportunity to use my governance power to support builders like the Bears, and others! This woud engage me further while providing another avenue for smaller builders and the ecosystem to grow.


Thanks @mattrickswayze for the additional details! :pray:

Regarding the community assessment, does it mean the community should vote for each and every new farm?

Also, adding a new farm means reducing the emission that goes to other farms. How emission to other farms should be reduced to your opinion? Could the emission of a farm increased later on?

1 Like

Implementing a voting mechanism, especially for projects like SRB, could help filter out spam. Scaling prerequisites based on the project’s desired Dex level or target xMEX output is crucial. And adding a layer of community voting protection is necessary, preventing manipulation from certain projects. Considering % allocations, a combined monthly or epoch vote could allow users to both “vote for new farms” and/or “weight current farms.” For instance, if SRB meets prerequisites, users could deploy governance power to “vote new”, surrendering rewards for the cycle, and potentially reinforcing the intentions of “for serious inquiries only.” Further research and consideration would be needed for such use cases, as well as some likely trial and error. #MEXto1 :joy: