Community Suggestions For Octopus 2.0

Dump your ideas for the new and improved Octopus Network 2.0 out in Q2 2023!

Feel free to discuss openly and add to the list. Disclosing your telegram handle also helps with follow ups.


6th Jan 2023

1, From chem platform: And we are told to have an unbonding period of 21 day for HIGH risk startups without background checks. Either HIGH RISK/ HIGH REWARD/ SHORT UNBONDING or LOW RISK/ LONG UNBONDING. At this time, we investors are disadvantaged.
Action: revise 21 days unbonding and also consider doxxing and background checks for core team members


8th Jan 2023

  1. From chem platform:
  • Shortening of unbonding
  • Higher entry barrier including legal constitutions for new appchains
  • Listing of tokens on FXDX or a NEAR DEX
  1. Telegram handle proposer

  2. From Franbuzz: improvements on the explorers. Being more transparent and that is essential. To list each project’s wallets by holders that can track what team wallets do.


Suggestion for Cosmos Appchain:

I know its more easier to say 70% ReNear stakers and 30% Octopus stakers. But what happens if you have 10 millon oct staked at 1 U$S each oct and 10000 Renear at U$S 4?

You will give 70% of the rewards to those who bring value for 40.000 U$S and 30% to those who bring 10 Millon dollar? What happens then is that all those Oct will unstake, sell and buy Renear to stake causing the price of OCT going down.

I believe staking Renear must be a second choice, but with exactly the same weight as staking Octopus. A different choice, if you want to hold Near instead of Octopus ( will be good for people who wants reewards from some projects, and doesnt want to invest in octopus directly. But this is Octopus Network, it cannot be a stone or with more benefit than staking Oct. At least the same on Cosmos… and the plus with 1.0. We all know that Cosmos appchains will be more easy to arrive, so i dont like the idea that they have more benefits staking renear than Oct.

If not in my case for example I will sell all and buy Near. The only purpose of staking OCT is to win reewards from other projects. If i win more rewards staking Renear , why I would hold Oct.

If I have the same rewards why I would stay with Oct and not Renear? Because Oct is fixed supply and I have the plus of Oct 1.0 if I want.

When I invested on Octopus at first I was imaging that on 3/4 years thereee can be 50 appchains running and with that 60/70 M octopus staked… and with a fixed supply the price of oct going up.
If you change like that I believe the interest of staking Oct will not be pushed.

So my suggestion for Cosmos Appchain Rewards:

  • Split the rewards depending the value weight you add. If there are 10 oct staked and the value is 0.25 and there is 10 Renear staked with price 2 usd each, you have a total value of 22.5 usd.
    if you stake 1 Oct your reward will be 1,11%
    if you stake 2 Renear your reeward will be 17,77%.

There are clearly holes in your argument. Your calculation is not objective because it is just a guess and is not based on a particular frame of reference. (Just like when calculating velocity we need to consider the frame of reference in which the object is to be calculated) On what basis do you say that when Oct costs $1, Near’s price is $4? It’s just a random number that you come up with and apply to the calculation. In fact, considering the actual capitalization of Near and Oct at the moment, along with the potential that Near can support the Octopus ecosystem, I think 30% is an appropriate number.


why do you need a reNear at all? why not just use OCT in both cases?


Hi, bro for Octopus 2.0 won’t be used a derivative NEAR token (reNear). Both OCT and NEAR will be used for this new design.


Hi everyone

In my opinion, the development of appchains and having appchains running on production is very important. We can follow either 1.0 or 2.0, it just expands our use case.
My question is: What if there’s no appchain going live?
What solution do we have to push the appchain to go live? Is it possible for us to develop the appchain ourselves? We are the creators of oct, so we understand how to code a project. Why don’t we take the initiative to code it ourselves?

@louis please read my comment


For gaming applications, we can learn from games like Aurora, 2048, Flappy Bird, and other competitive games that attract users. When there are more users, we will have more ways to expand. Let’s focus on the user and create fun games.


Lastly, I want to emphasize an idea. We can develop our own games to attract users and reduce dependence on other factors. Let’s think about this proposal. I believe in the coders of OCT. As a validator, I can offer free initial support for the project when we attract users. What do other validators think about this? Let’s work together to strengthen the OCT network and move forward together.


If there is no appchain wants to build on Octopus Network, it leads to an obvious conclusion that Octopus doesn’t have any PMF(Product Market Fit). It is not only the most negative but also the most valuable market signal that we can expect because it tells us that the current direction is wrong and we need to devote our resources to other areas. But I am sure it is not the case since we have received positive feedback from Cosmos appchain developers, and we still have a Substrate portfolio waiting for launch.

Octopus is a Web3 infrastructure. We assembled the team and made the plan according to the goal. If the best way to create value for the Octopus community is to dev and run an appchain, we should focus on the app, not the infra.


Nice to hear that Cosmos appchain developers have positive feedback
I want to confirm that we focus on the infra, not the app.


As you said, the marketing and the value must be focus on appchains. Give them advantages of running on Octopus than other places.

Actually Im helping arthur from Fusotao freely with some ideas. And I was thinking today the following…

Now that Fusotao is launching the broker node system where any project can have their own dex and obtain half of the fees and I believe that Octopus must be the first one. In that way Octopus 2.0 will be able to:

  • Offer a service for appchains
  • Collect trading fees from the pair X/USDT and share USDT with OCT stakers/delegators and the “X” token fees with the project.

Im proposing to give with that a better service for appchains, saving money on listing and sharing them fees from their tokens to have also incomes from that to keep building or burning them as a marketing strategy. I believe that there must be an economical benefit for project, so they can encourage and insist to their community to by on octopus dex instead of alternative cex.

With this strategy we will be giving a lot of value to OCT token.

If Octopus team need incomes for development other way can be to keep the usdt fees and share the “X” coins fee between the project and OCT stakers/delegators. Im not sure if can be like TAO that you stake on the protocol to earn the rewards… or if you can do it manually every month to delegators on both ecosystem, substrate and cosmos.

extra feature - If also you can migrate the USDT/OCT to your own dex. You will be colleecting OCT token Fees. If those tokens can be pooled on a community pool for future dao actions will be nice, like marketing campaigns or burning.


I just see your answer. So the clearly holes where the examples of values I gave? dont be so literal. were examples, and the maths can be done with every hipothetical price. What I was trying to show is that there can be more rewards to one side than other, having more money invested on the lower side, independent the numbers.