Project Miro - Deployment of VLR on BSC

[Laita]

1.- Proposal Number & Name:

Project Miro - Deployment of VLR on BSC

2.- Abstract:

WIth over 6.1 Billion in onchain TVL, BSC is the second largest EVM compatible network after Ethereum Mainnet itself. Following the roadmap outlined in Project Miro, the following proposal aims to expand on cooperation with major close partners and community members following the objective given to Laita in Project Miro.

The aim of the proposal is to deploy the upcoming VLR token on BSC, as well as provide a baseline Protocol-Owned Liquidity pool of $600k USD total to allow traders to be able to interact with the token seamlessly. The PoL will still be owned by the DAO, and all operations and execution will be performed by Laita Labs.

3.- Goals & Review:

As part of the efforts outlined in Project Miro Roadmap ( Project Miro Roadmap - A DAO Beyond Aggregation), Laita Labs has been researching ways to align with the goals established in the establishd categories, and wishes to propose BSC as key step in accomplishing this goals with the VLR token.

According to DeFi Llama ( https://defillama.com/chains ) , as of the time of writing BSC has over 6.11 B in DeFi TVL, which makes it the second largest EVM-compatible chain, while having a greater total than both Optimism and Base combined. In addition, we believe that there are key partnerships and community members in BSC that focus mostly on this ecosystem, opening the VLR to new opportunities.

The goal of the following proposal is to deploy VLR with sufficient liquidity on BSC to be able to continue the aims outlined in Project Miro, with the liquidity being available immediately from the new migration release date.

4.- Means:

As this is a Project Miro related proposal, Laita Labs will use the amount already allocated in PIP-56 to cover the required VLR for bridging, liquidity and more. WIth regards to the bridging solution, we propose the implementation of the Across bridging protocol, as it is already integrated within Velora and the Laita Labs team is already familiar with the infrastructure.

For the initial liquidity, we believe the best way forward for now will be to deploy a Protocol-Owned Liquidity pool on BSC prior to exploring expansion of the staking system. To allow for sufficient liquidity after deployment , we propose a deployment of ~300k USD in stables, converted from the current treasury and deposited onto PancakeSwap.

In terms of development and coordination, Laita Labs is willing to execute the operations and deployment of the token at no additional cost to the DAO.

5.- Implementation Overview:

To implement the proposal, the following steps will be needed:

1. Deployment of the token contract on BSC
2. Bridging and swapping of assets necessary for Protocol-Owned Liquidity
3. Depositing and management of a VLR-Stable pool onto Pancakeswap

If approved, Laita Labs is willing to work on the deployment of the following operations.

6.- Time of Implementation:

Operations for the proposal will begin as soon as the vote comes to a pass. We aim for VLR to be live on BSC and with its liquidity deployed by the time the token is fully released across all chains.

7.- Budget:

As mentioned in the ‘Means’ section, the current proposal will utilise resources already allocated in PIP-56 with regards to the VLR deployment. The liquidity from the stables will be drawn from the existing DAO treasury, which will be converted to stables and deposited into this pool.

8.- Risk Assessment:

As the protocol-owned liquidity will be on a pancakeswap pool, one risk identified will be regarding the potential impermanent loss of a stable pool. However, we believe this risk to be worth assuming compared to correlating it with an unstable asset, as it will ensure greater predictability of asset value from the moment of the proposal passing to the release of the VLR token.

[boardroom]

We’re happy to support deploying VLR on BSC. It aligns well with the Miró roadmap’s growth objectives and taps into BSC’s ecosystem (now slightly under $6B TVL). We’re big on cost efficiency, so it’s nice to see that the proposal leverages the existing PIP-56 allocation and requires no additional budget. One minor question, could the team specify which stablecoin will be used for the ~$300k liquidity, or will that be announced once the token is released across all chains?

[SEEDGov]

Adding some additional context beyond just measuring TVL, according to DeFiLlama, BSC is currently — and by a wide margin — the chain with the highest daily DEX volume, even surpassing Ethereum Mainnet. This is particularly relevant for Velora.

Looking at Velora’s total trading volume over the past 24 hours, the last week, and the last 90 days, BSC ranks sixth among all chains, and fifth in the protocol’s overall historical data. This suggests there’s still significant room for growth, and this move could be a smart marketing strategy to strengthen Velora’s presence on BSC.

Lastly, a question for the @Laita team — acknowledging that you may not be able to share details due to confidentiality or strategic considerations: Does deploying VLR on BSC open the door to a potential future listing on Binance? Are you actively pursuing that path commercially?

[jameskbh]

Thanks for your proposal!

Listing VLR on BSC will help to access a new audience (as there is no significant overlap between BSC users and ETH and L2), but I have a question: Without staking (at first), what holders will be able to do with it besides LPing in the pool or bridging it, where they will be able to get a revenue share? As BSC users typically only trade on BSC, I do not expect significant bridging…

Could guys expand a bit on the next steps after the initial deployment?

[Tane]

We appreciate the clear alignment between this proposal and Project Miro’s roadmap, and we value the decision to reuse PIP-56 funds for a cost-efficient rollout. We believe two areas need more detail before we can fully assess execution risk and growth potential.

1. Protocol-owned liquidity strategy
   Which stablecoin will fund the initial $300k, and will the PoL stay passively supplied or be actively managed? An active approach, such as periodic rebalancing or oracle-guided re-weights, could limit divergence loss but adds operational overhead. We’d love to understand how you view this balance and how you plan it.

2. Go-to-market on BSC
   Velora’s current traction on BSC appears modest (DeFiLlama), meaning it would not be very easy to gain decent trading volume for VLR there. What concrete tactics are you thinking to attract traders and integrators once VLR launches? Examples might include targeted farm incentives, partnerships with BSC-native dApps, wallet integrations, or co-marketing with ecosystem players. A clear growth roadmap will help ensure the PoL turns into real trading volume rather than dormant liquidity.

Addressing these points will strengthen the proposal and give the community greater confidence in the BSC deployment.

[Ignas]

As far as I know, going to BSC is usually due to two goals:

1. Tap into different use base (Non Western users)
2. Increase chances of listing on Binance. Being part of Binance ecosystem is a plus, especially as the proposal includes initial liquidity.

BSC is now recording record trading volumes: $9.9B in 24 hours. More than Solana or Ethereum: $2.5b each.

Problem? A lot of wash trading.

This proposal also fits nicely into the Project Miro roadmap and doesn’t ask for extra budget. If there’s a clear plan to reach that user base, definitely win :).

Just an idea that based on DefiLlama data https://defillama.com/protocol/dex-aggregators/velora, Arbitrum is actually the 2nd largest chain by trading volume for Velora after Ethereum, around $348M in May, while BSC was $44M.

So maybe we should also consider chains where Velora (Paraswap - PSP) already has traction and goodwill?

Not against BSC at all, just thinking more options and data could help the DAO make a stronger decision. Yet if team has some tacit/or not so tacit agreement that disregard my comment lol.

[AranaDigital]

The justification for deploying POL for VLR on BSC somewhat makes sense—but it’s in our opinion not incredibly enticing. Some type of collaboration or partnership with Binance would make this far more interesting. We’re unsure if the Laita team can disclose this information, but it may be helpful for the team to, for instance, hint at something like this on an unrecorded call. We aren’t sure if there would be strong enough ROI for deploying this liquidity based on the existing reason of there being a lot of volume/TVL on BSC in general. There also doesn’t seem to be a clear history between Velora/Paraswap and BSC, while aggregators like 1inch seem to have more clear traction on the chain:

It is also unclear why a BSC user would be compelled to trade the VLR token, especially if the userbase is less so acclimated with the product—or has no marketing directed towards them to make them aware of Velora. It may take a decent amount of effort to shift mindshare away from, say, 1inch without support from Binance directly. We’d love to hear more about adoption strategy. Or perhaps, if the Laita team can indicate that there are plans of coordinating this effort with the Binance team, without publicizing further details, that would also give a stronger indication of a thought-out arrangement behind this proposal.

[Mehdi]

Firstly, as other delegates have mentioned, the BSC chain shows a lot of inorganic activity. We can’t rely solely on this data, as it’s subject to manipulation. Personally, I rarely use BSC these days.

Moreover, there’s little conviction left to justify investing further engineering effort and resources into expanding on this chain.

While expanding services on BSC might help with getting listed on Binance, it’s typically the services—not the token—that benefit. Therefore, I don’t believe this strategy would significantly help us at this stage.

Beyond that, we should prioritize our resources to strengthen our presence on emerging, high-potential chains such as HyperEVM, Plasma Chain, MegaETH, Monad, and others.

Lastly, having POL (Protocol-Owned Liquidity) is a great idea—I proposed it earlier myself. However, it only makes sense if it’s used to deepen our token’s liquidity, enabling new investors to enter with minimal price impact or to meet the requirements of a VC liquidity audit.

Based on the above points, I am against the proposal.

[PGov]

From a high level, this initiative advances the Miró roadmap and finds a nice way to re-use the PIP-56 budget, so we are broadly supportive. BSC’s size and the chance of building Binance mind-share are big benefits, however the chain’s headline of billions of 24-h DEX volume is well known to include heavy wash-trading, so not convinced thats a good driving motivation here.

Specifically, it would be nice to know/see:

• Which stablecoin backs the ~$300k PoL, and why it was chosen, and whether the position will be actively re-balanced. A passive 50/50 pool can bleed value while a more active managed CL could cap divergence loss at the cost of more ops overhead.
• Velora’s May volumes show Arbitrum ($348 M) outranking BSC ($44 M), while current BSC traction ranks only sixth for the protocol. That gap implies we’ll need more than baseline liquidity to attract BSC traders. Are there any concrete tactics planned to convert PoL into real flow?

If these execution, risk-management, and GTM details are addressed, we would be largely in favor. Otherwise, it might make sense to prioritize other chains where Velora already show organic demand.

[Laita]

Thank you everyone for your valid feedback, we hope this post will help shed some clarity on many of the points raised in the thread so far:

---

@jameskbh

Without staking (at first), what holders will be able to do with it besides LPing in the pool or bridging it, where they will be able to get a revenue share? As BSC users typically only trade on BSC, I do not expect significant bridging…

@Tane

What concrete tactics are you thinking to attract traders and integrators once VLR launches?

@AranaDigital

It is also unclear why a BSC user would be compelled to trade the VLR token, especially if the userbase is less so acclimated with the product—or has no marketing directed towards them to make them aware of Velora

@PGov

That gap implies we’ll need more than baseline liquidity to attract BSC traders. Are there any concrete tactics planned to convert PoL into real flow?

Once the liquidity has been deployed, stakers will be able to vote using the VLR tokens, unlocking already a key utility, as well as planned cross-chain compatibility using Delta.

Were the proposal to pass, Laita is already communicating with many key partners and planning marketing initiatives to create campaigns that will help VLR be established in the BSC community.

As some Delegates have pointed out, BSC volume is in relative terms lower than in other chains, which also positions it as a key market to experiment on vertical growth. As the liquidity is DAO owned, there is always the ability to re-evaluating the strategy after deployment as needed, with the possibility of introduction of staking if significant adoption is achieved.

With the introduction of VLR on BSC, we believe this can be used in a synergistic manner to promote the growth of both the token and the protocol for a chain which usually does not have users familiar with bridging to our existing L2 deployments.

@Tane

will the PoL stay passively supplied or be actively managed?

@PGov

[. . . ] whether the position will be actively re-balanced. A passive 50/50 pool can bleed value while a more active managed CL could cap divergence loss at the cost of more ops overhead.

Since posting this proposal on the forums, we have begun exploring active position management strategies to assist with the liquidity depth of the PoL. Some of the current options include automated position managers such as Arrakis Finance or more active solutions.

If any of these solutions are opted for, the information will be shared in the forums directly.

---

@boardroom

One minor question, could the team specify which stablecoin will be used for the ~$300k liquidity, or will that be announced once the token is released across all chains?

@Tane

Which stablecoin will fund the initial $300k [ . . .]

@PGov

• Which stablecoin backs the ~$300k PoL, and why it was chosen [ . . . ]

Looking at the data shared by DefiLlama on stablecoin dominance in BSC, USDT holds a clear dominance, holding over 5 Billion more in TVL compared to USDC.

We are happy to explore alternatives if the DAO is aware of other potential stables to pair it with, but would like to ensure that whichever pool we pair with maximises the possible depth and volume on the pair.

[citizen42]

I’m fully behind BSC deployment, thank you @Laita for hashing out the tactics and guardrails we need. Giving VLR immediate onchain first via POL is exactly the right first step and your marketing outreach into the BSC community will be crucial to turn this into some actual trading flow.

I love the idea of active pool management, Arrakis would be my top pick for capping divergence loss but since it isn’t yet live on BSC, I’d welcome a discussion on the next-best DEX we could adopt there just to make sure our liquidity isn’t just passive but resilient and we can deliver top-tier experience from day one. Any suggestions you guys thought of ?

[Laita]

Thank you for the feedback @citizen42 , we are currently thinking of exploring partnering with a liquidity managing third party , as we have seen that many automated managers are being retired from the main interface, and we are not sure how this will alter their performance in the future. We will update on this thread which solution we end up opting for.

As we have not received any other feedback over the last few days, we would like to advance with the Frozen Period of the proposal, and hope to post the proposal shortly after.

[Avantgarde]

Having sat down with @0xYtocin recently during ETH Milan and heard the overall rationale for this, we have voted in support of this proposal.

Though we recognise and to some extent agree with the points highlighted by @AranaDigital @Mehdi, we understand there are greater goals that motives this move. While we understand that Laita are unable to yet fully disclose the details of this pipeline, we believe we need to show faith and trust in the team—which is what we’re doing here.

Furthermore, if we can assist with any of the liquidity, you know how to reach us @Laita.

[Curia]

We support the deployment of VLR on BSC, as it represents a logical next step given BSC’s strong DeFi presence and its current ranking as the sixth-highest source of trading volume on Velora, clear evidence of existing user activity. However, we believe it’s important to establish clear success metrics for this launch, both to assess the impact of this specific deployment and to inform future expansion strategies.

Metrics such as VLR trading volume on BSC, number of unique holders, and transaction counts would offer valuable insight into adoption and overall effectiveness. While we recognize this suggestion may come a bit late for the current round, we strongly encourage incorporating these metrics in future deployment plans.

Additionally, as SeedLatam pointed out, BSC ranks sixth in trading volume. It would be helpful to know whether we’ve already deployed VLR on the top five chains and, if so, what the results were. Understanding the impact of those deployments could provide context for what we might expect from BSC. We know BSC had the highest DEX volume over the past 30 days, but that doesn’t automatically guarantee strong demand for VLR post-deployment. Learning from this rollout could help us optimize and refine our strategy for future launches.