Should Jet go Multichain?

This is to start the conversation around the potential of Jet becoming a multi or cross-chain protocol.

For the purposes of this discussion here is where I draw the distinction between the two:

multi-chain: segregated protocols and liquidity, developed and operated by the same JetDAO
cross-chain: (somehow) bridged liquidity, protocol interactions, etc…

There may also be some blending of the 2 that may make sense for the architecture.

What really intrigues me about this possible path is the strategy. There’s a very strong argument that if Jet does go Multi/Cross chain, Ethereum is kind of a no brainer for the first move:

  • You get access to a much larger addressable market
  • There’s a number of technical options and resources for bridging and building on Ethereum
  • If you build a solid EVM engineering team, theoretically there’s a number of other significant chains you could integrate. Avalanche, Fantom, BNB, etc…

On the other hand some downsides:

  • borrow/lending is a crowded market on Ethereum
  • the performance and complexity (L2s) of Ethereum may make it difficult to achieve feature parity and compatibility with the Solana implementation

The reason I started thinking about this is that I’ve been paying attention to the protocols that are building on the leftover open source tech from Meta (facebook)'s Libra/Diem project. In my opinion the 2 of those that are the most interesting are Mysten Lab’s Sui and Aptos. It’s possible that these smart contract platforms will provide better performance than Solana. But it is still early to say. I also think that the Move programming language may very well become a ubiquitous smart contract programming language.

The nerd in me says let’s be pioneers and capture first mover advantage on some of these other chains but that’s not necessarily the prudent decision for an existing protocol.

I’d love to hear thoughts around:

  • Is going multi/cross chain even worth considering at this point? why or why not?
  • If we did go multi-chain what chain or chains should we target?
  • What are the criteria we should consider when choosing another L1?
  • Any other thoughts on the subject.

Interesting idea but would first focus development effort on releasing an innovative V2 product. Creating the first true Defi 2.0 borrowing/lending platform will be much better for JET in the long run than having first mover advantage on the phantom facebook chains or being an also-ran on Ethereum/L2s.
My 2 frequent flyer miles :slight_smile:


Hey flightclub - thanks for your input in the Jet Forum (-:

I also agree, an innovative v2 product pushing the boundaries of DeFi is paramount for Jet

1 Like

I think that is a very valid opinion. What do you think are the features necessary for Jet to be a true Defi 2.0 platform?

1 Like

Great question, open to interpretation at this point. In very general terms the protocol should be focused on generating revenue and distributing it back to JET holders in such a way that it encourages both holding JET and increases adoption of the protocol. Openness and composability with other protocols is a must. Open governance controlled by JET holders, perhaps even incentives/rewards for active participation.
For borrowing/lending specifically the goal should be high utilization of all capital in order to maximize revenue for the protocol, not TVL or similar metrics, those will come naturally.
Just my view from 30000 feet :airplane:


You should consider Algorand as a potential L1, Jet prtocol fits perfectly with it, it grows fast and it is institutional oriented

1 Like