IIP-21: Bridge IOTX from IoTeX to Ethereum

Anything to get rid of iotx-e

1 Like

My personal view is really simple. It’s not about price or arbitrage opportunity.

As long as it improves the convenience for iotx holders to get off/on ramp via the CEX that’s available to them and then to/from native IOTX, I’m all for it. Of course I’d prefer if we are able to directly use native on Coinbase, but that’s not happening anytime soon.


Shared with consent from user, G-Rex via Official Telegram Group. Hopefully we can get answers/explanation from the experts

link: Telegram: Contact @IoTeXGroup


Iotx ERC20 is useless, why should rational people provide liquidity for an asset that has no use cases in ETH and is super expensive to trade?

This proposal won’t solve the IOTX ERC20 problem created by Coinbase, it will amplify the problem creating more misunderstanding between the different IOTX ERC20 tokens on Ethereum, it will open the doors to potential hacks to the Iotube bridge, it will put the entire iotex mainnet chain under risk as a consequence, it will open the space to more arbitrage opportunities for exchanges that have huge reserves of iotex and algorithms to maximize their liquidity allocations on different chains.

This is the worst proposal ever heard so far, there are no economic principle in it. It will create only issues, no solutions.

The liquidity for iotx will get better if you will develops useful dapps and helpful use cases on the iotx mainnet, not if you create a garbage iotx erc20 token with no underlying value.

Have you ever asked to yourself why Binance has imposed to their users to switch between BNB erc20 standard to Bep2 and Bep20? You have to aggregate liquidity on the main chain, not spreading it on other chains. Only valuable dapp on iotex will lead you to a deeper liquidity for IOTX.


p/s: I’m just the mailman


Just crossed my mind, why not get the CEX to opt-in to migrate to CIOTX first before we proceed any further?

That way we can get a clearer view on which method is the best.

For others, I thought I’d share this to probably try to help shed some more light on the reason why this idea is proposed:

Currently, in order to move IOTX from native to Polygon/BSC/Polis or vice versa, it needs to be swapped to CIOTX using mimo/uniswap/pcs/etc before bridging via iotube.

CIOTX on each respective chain mentioned above has a different contract. But when they are bridged to IoTeX, when they exist on IoTeX, they have the same contract. I’ll leave the link to this at the bottom.
If you noticed, stablecoins from different network would have suffixes which indicate their origin. For example USDT_m, USDT_b, and these have different contracts when they are on IoTeX.

Why do we have IOTX/CIOTX on these other networks? Only the team can give the exact answer. I can only assume it is to leave the possibility of projects/dApps to utilize it, opened and to expand the network + dApps capability.

I remember when times were better, we’ve had a few projects who planned to allow their dApps to be utilized cross chain (gamefi projects). So this could probably be 1 of the reasons.

Anyways, back to shedding light, IF this passes, I’d presume CIOTX on IoTeX, regardless of their origin (whether native, Polygon, Polis, BSC since they have the same contract) can be directly bridged to ETH via iotube AND CIOTX on other networks can also be directly bridged to ETH probably via any other bridges where liquidity is provided. So this would somehow, probably trigger the effort for price of IOTX to be somewhat equalized across the networks.

Just in case, REMINDER: Don’t bridge directly to CEX.

As for the security aspect of it, I leave that to the experts.

Feel free to correct me where I might state the wrong info.

Link to Contract for assets on other networks: ioTube | IoTeX Bridge


Ok, it can be a good way to start moving those coins whom really are not doing anything useful except for trading (in exchanges like coinbase). If it brings the opportunity to get more users and case of uses it definitely it’s going to be a good solution.


Me personally will never give this a “Yes” when the voting commence bcoz the idea doesn’t make any sense when there’s already existing ERC-20 IOTX token!

Instead of this, can you simply migrate/retire E-IOTX into CIOTX and airdrop CIOTX to all E-IOTX holders?

Keeping both E-IOTX and CIOTX I think is a very bad idea and will create the same no-liquidity problem we have between native and E-IOTX where nobody wants to exchange a token that is worth more for a token that is worth less.

Having too many different IOTX token versions is not a good idea especially creating another token version to ETH network making it two different tokens in same ETH network!

Let the team not use their hand to spoil their years of hard work with this new idea…


Hence why I asked if they could get the CEX (only 2 CEX so far with iotx-e afaik) to opt in to migrate to CIOTX first. If the CEX says, “yep,just bring it on and we switch to CIOTX”, then it should be clear, the airdrop path is the better path.

Currently, the supposed lp (CIOTX/IOTX-e) has to exist because the 2 CEX are listing the iotx-e. If we can get them to agree on CIOTX on Eth, airdrop is the way.


Thank you mailman! We appreciate your work.


I think this is necessary


If the vote were to take place today, how would you vote on IIP-21? If you would like to explain your vote, please comment below. If you are undecided, please comment on what is unclear or what else you need to know.

  • In favor of passing this proposal
  • Against passing this proposal

0 voters


I’d vote in favor of the proposal. For one, it’s my believe that the team wants the best for the project and are doing all it takes to see it fly.


If this was feasible, wouldn’t Coinbase have already changed IOTEX-E to Native?
There was huge demand and IoTeX team tried to have it changed but it did not happen.


My understanding is this is a very low priority for Coinbase and so they’re not devoting dev resources to addressing this. I wish we ranked higher, obviously, but… there ya go.

1 Like

totally agree with the part about valuable dapps, in my perspective as someone who considered to build a project in IoTeX then I went to try use MIMO as sadly the only option to create a liquidity pool, then that pool was broken within 2 simple transactions and it’s not possible to do any transactions on it and this was not only not fixed but they just ignored me after i complained about it.

The issue is persistent bad quality of dapps, lack of quality control and lack of proper quality support materials for development on IoTeX.

On discord we have the dev resources, severely outdated, one to mint NFTs that doesn’t work well and is still making reference to IoPay desktop that has been discontinued.
As I checked MultiversX dev resources, they have fully built and functioning projects we can just use as a base to build our own stuff, interactive tutorial to build a full functional game Crypto Zombies and much more.
I think if we follow that example and have functional and quality dev templates of finished and functional sample projects that devs can use to build their dapps, it would be a great starting point.

The easier we make it for devs to build projects the more adoption there will be. If you do not make it easier, they will go elsewhere, plenty of other networks to choose with far better support.

Helium made their choice to go to Polygon.
Now I get it, I won’t use IoTeX for any project because the only available liquidity pool dapp (MIMO) doesn’t work well, it’s not updated in real-time sometimes is late on blocks too, liquidity pools are buggy and can break completely, iotexscan is buggy too giving wrong data or “undefined” values.

So far down the line this level of quality is just not good enough and excuses “it’s open source” don’t mean anything to me, either it’s buggy or it isn’t. If it’s buggy and nobody is going to fix it or even take it serious, I’ll take my projects elsewhere. Me and a lot of others who think the same.


Thanks so much for taking the time to list these issues. I’ll bring them up to the dev team. Crypto Zombies is a good tutorial. Even I, a non-dev was able to work thru most of it.
Again, thanks for the input.


Some things I can help with:

  1. Quality control to increase usability, ease of use of apps/dapps, report broken stuff, outdated stuff, other important issues

  2. Research list of assets needed to make dev onboarding and continued support better for example:

  • adding XRC-1155 + XRC721 standard contract samples to a resources site which people can use (MultiversX has a very good one: Resources)

  • Adapt Crypto Zombies for IoTeX (once done this can be added to the official crypto zombies site, they have a version for dif networks - this will bring awareness and users to IoTeX to build games using that base)

I also suggest having maybe a weekly project support call or something where people can discuss ideas/projects and get feedback if it’s feasible and how they could build, point to right resources/support.


Copy/pasta-ing this too to pass along. Much appreciated.

1 Like

Personally, I see it as an excellent idea and I’ll give it a yes


vote yes just because it’s better than not doing anything


Voted yes because it’s opens door’s of other transaction activities than the usual.

1 Like