Welcome to Switcheo’s governance forum!

This platform will be used to share governance-related ideas and proposals to collectively improve the Switcheo TradeHub protocol.


  • Informative and detailed overview on Switcheo TradeHub's governance and how to participate.

  • For discussion on innovative ideas and initiatives that you wish to bring to life on Switcheo TradeHub.

  • An open discussion for proposals that have been submitted to Switcheo TradeHub.

  • Developer discussion and proposals / progress reports for the Switcheo Development Fund (SDF).

  • An open and collaborative space for the community to discuss matters relating to Switcheo TradeHub's staking economics.

  • Topics related to the creation of new financial markets and its surrounding parameters.

  • Feedback on website design and functionality.

Recent Posts
  • K

    Hi guys, when creating a market, it's important to choose parameters such as maker and taker fees. It's great that Demex allows customisation of fees rather than flat fees for all pairs. I would like to propose to list TRU_BUSD with 0.02% taker fees and -0.01% maker fees for a 3-month promotional period. This means that stakers get the difference of 0.01%.

    The reasons are:

    We need new users to try out our platform, therefore we need a strong selling point to get them over. What better way than to say, come trade with almost no fees! The negative maker rebate will not be significant in attracting liquidity at the start - the rewards will form a significant portion of it. It's an experiment to see if reducing fees work to increase volumes. These fees will make us cheaper than Binance, which is a great selling point.

    I would like to propose that this promotional period will last for 3 months. After which, we will have another proposal for the community to vote whether to revert to the fee schedule of -0.05% maker and 0.1% taker.

    We will also monitor constantly and propose earlier if needed.

    Draft proposal: https://switcheo.org/governance/proposal/64?net=main

    read more
  • S

    As Usdt (erc20) is a stable coin which has 10-20 times daily more volume than USDC and BUSD, we should create first a swth_usdt market for Usdt Traders around the world to get onboard on demex

    you can check the volume
    of all stable coins here Volume stable coinshttps://coinmarketcap.com/view/stablecoin/

    I know that usdt erc20 transfers are very expensive
    however Usdt has highest volume and eth/usdt is a market with billions of volume
    despite the high fees of eth usdt, people are still using it, we offer for out conscious traders bsc and busd transfers, but to get all uniswap traders we should offer some usdt pairs as well. later we should also add Eth_usdt pair and pool, some big institutions hold and trade only eth and usdt, demex can attract also their money. usdt with its high volume should also be a part of demex besides busd and usdc

    here is the link to the correct proposal to add swth_usdt to demex. I can imagine that there are investors who will buy switcheo only with usdt and they dont want to buy busd from binance, some us investors arent allowed to buy busd on binance and most of them are not using USDC, they use USDT. I believe that we will attract Uniswap and institutional money with USDT
    lets start with adding Swth_usdt market and later pool.

    click here for proposal proposal


    read more
  • K

    @Devel484 I supported the proposal to create a token just so that if we need it in the future, it's already accessible. It's not a bad idea to create the token first.

    It might be good to have USDT/USDC pair tho

    read more
  • D

    In my opinionen USDT is not required(yet) since it is just another ERC-20 token. For me I wont trade USDT at all or not much. The biggest problem is the high deposit and withdraw fees like all ERC-20 tokens already have. The new pair USDT/BUSD wont bring much volume since there is no need to swap between both. We dont have any other USDT pairs and I think USDT pools wont attract much liquidity.

    read more