Bridge Proposal: Support additional ERC-20s

To enable the transfer of new assets between NoM and Ethereum, the bridge admin must provision certain parameters by calling the setTokenInfo function.

Sumamu provided some insight about this process:

  1. There’s a timechallenge, so it needs to be called twice
    • It will cost some ETH to provision these tokens
  2. He suggested the following steps:
      1. audit ERC20 contract to make sure it’s secure and won’t break the bridge
      1. get the community’s opinion and approval
      • submit an AZ, purely for gauging pillar acceptance
      1. get the admin to set the token

I want to start the conversation for the following ERC-20s on NoM:

Please leave a comment if you have other suggestions.

Which ERC-20s would you like to see on NoM?
  • WBTC
  • USDT
  • USDC
  • None of the above
  • Other
0 voters

AZ Proposal
Link: Zenon Tools
I’ve created an AZ proposal for all three contenders.
I will not be requesting any payment for this proposal.


I’m all for the technical audit necessary not to break the bridge but I think the approval should solely based on this in order to keep the gates open for builders without us, the OG community, enforcing ideological biases. It would keep the economy and the network agile while letting the market (I know you guys love that) decide about value and liquidity.

Agreed, but I don’t think the bridge solution permits that at this time.

In the future, I believe organizations wishing to migrate their tokens to NoM will submit a proposal to the governance contract. Successful proposals will automatically trigger bridge function calls to provision those tokens.


do you think we need to audit USDC, USDT or wBTC? Or is this a recommendation for less trusted ERC-20 tokens?

Once we have USDT and others it’s time for me to share a swap videos to the right people. Big names and liquidity could start looking. The other step will be to attract stables liquidity on the NoM, I don’t want to say airdrop, or farming, but I’m going to say it. Airdrop, and farming could be a logical path.


In this context, I’m speculating Sumamu meant that the token should be well-known, legitimate, not a rug pull, as well as compatible with the bridge.

I would not want to pay for a third-party token’s security audit.

@sumamu please elaborate if I’m wrong.


Hello I’m Sumamu and I can assure you hewwo shitcoin doesn’t need an audit


I think it would be great if we can make this happen. These ERC tokens would definitely improve the usefulness of P2P swaps.

I’m also curious to know what level of auditing would USDT or USDC need for example. And do we have the competence within the community to do that?


We don’t need to (re)-audit WBTC, USDT or USDC. Just make sure they’re fully compatible with the bridge.


The poll has closed and there appears to be support for all three candidates.

I propose that we bridge them all.
I’ll submit an AZ to gauge pillar sentiment.


Topic moved to ╰ Funding | Staging

Looking forward to see how this plays out. Once a decision is reached, we can get started on it.


I’m going to add this topic to the Dev Agenda

1 Like

@sumamu What’s an ETA for configuring these tokens?

~2-3 weeks.


Would this also mean that Syrius users are able to store stablecoins as ZTS tokens?

Can you please provide a status update?

That’s right, wrapped USDT and USDC.


Is there any reason we need to call them wrapped? Since we can literally just call them usdc or usdt (same goes for btc obviously). Would prevent the bitter taste of “wrapping” which turns off some people

1 Like

Some symbol naming schemes:

  1. USDC
  3. ZUSDC
  4. WUSDC

I think 1 is disingenuous since those issuers don’t recognize ZTS yet. When they do issue their own tokens on NoM, we’ll need to distinguish between native USDC and wrapped.

We could consolidate USDC from various chains under symbols 3 and 4.

Disingenuous towards whom if it makes no difference for end users?

1 Like