Hi everyone,
I’m opening this discussion as a fork of my previous thread about exploring cross-chain liquidity for B3TR.
While thinking through the cross-chain idea, I started wondering whether we should first take a more fundamental step:
before trying to expand B3TR liquidity outside VeChain, should we first strengthen the B3TR economy inside VeChain itself?
My idea is to explore whether VeBetterDAO could become an anchor liquidity provider for a native B3TR/VTHO pool, using B3TR from the DAO Treasury together with part of the VTHO generated by B3M0.
The objective would be to test whether DAO-owned liquidity can create a small circular economic mechanism within the ecosystem:
B3M0 generates VTHO → DAO pairs it with Treasury B3TR → DAO-owned B3TR/VTHO liquidity → trading activity generates fees → value remains under DAO control.
This would also give us real operational experience before considering a similar model cross-chain.
Why start internally first?
I still believe that expanding B3TR to Ethereum and other ecosystems could be strategically valuable in the long term.
However, cross-chain liquidity introduces additional layers of complexity: bridges, custody on another blockchain, external smart contracts and additional security assumptions.
A native VeChain pilot would allow us to first test the underlying economic model in our own ecosystem.
If DAO-owned B3TR/VTHO liquidity works internally, we would have real data about volume, fee generation, impermanent loss, liquidity management and user demand before deciding whether the concept should be expanded elsewhere.
So I currently see the possible roadmap as:
Phase 1: build and test DAO-owned B3TR/VTHO liquidity on VeChain
→ evaluate the results
→ Phase 2: if the model proves useful, explore cross-chain expansion
Proposed 6-month pilot
My current operational idea would be the following.
1. Initial liquidity
I would propose an experimental 6-month B3TR/VTHO liquidity position using:
200,000 B3TR from the VeBetterDAO Treasury
and approximately
3.5M VTHO from the B3M0 validator rewards
or, more precisely, the amount of VTHO required to match the value of the 200,000 B3TR at the time the liquidity is created.
The 200,000 B3TR amount is also interesting because it currently corresponds to the Treasury’s maximum B3TR transfer limit per operation. VeBetter DAO Docs
The exact VTHO amount should therefore be determined immediately before execution using a reasonable market price reference, rather than fixing an incorrect initial pool price.
BetterSwap itself warns that the initial token ratio determines the starting pool price and that a significant deviation from market value can create immediate arbitrage losses. BetterSwap Docs
2. Source of the VTHO
The VTHO would ideally come from the rewards generated by the B3M0 validator.
B3M0 has generated more than 10.7M VTHO in signer rewards according to the latest indexed validator data. VeChain Stats
On-chain data shows that the beneficiary originally used by B3M0 was:
0x68F6f3Ccb3aFfcb857788E6Bb94DF8348ab3D1ed
and that the more recent beneficiary is:
0xbEA5F23e1ff456a3d6c168bD509Ba2976392094f
Recent signed blocks continue to identify the latter address as beneficiary. VeChain Stats
However, this remains one of the key technical/governance points that needs clarification before any formal proposal is submitted:
Can VTHO accumulated in the B3M0 beneficiary wallet actually be allocated through a VeBetterDAO governance proposal?
I would particularly appreciate public clarification from @VeChainOps on this point.
3. Operational wallet
If the pilot is technically feasible and approved by governance, my current idea would be to send the B3TR and the required VTHO to the operational wallet:
0x5D9A5f5125f96729CfF4adc97f7F6702F0206263
This is the wallet I would like to investigate/use in connection with the operational model adopted for the previous DEX Liquidity Provision for B3TR proposal:
Before a formal proposal is submitted, I would want VeChainOps to confirm publicly that this remains the correct Foundation-controlled operational wallet for this type of execution, or provide another address if appropriate.
The purpose of this wallet would be strictly operational: receive the two assets, create the liquidity position and hold the resulting LP tokens on behalf of the DAO during the pilot.
4. Create the pool on BetterSwap V2
My current preference would be to create the experimental liquidity on BetterSwap V2.
There are several reasons for this.
BetterSwap is an established VeChain-native DEX built by contributors with a history of developing tools in the VeChain ecosystem. Its team describes itself as a collective of developers who have previously launched several VeChain tools and applications. The Better Collective
The V2 architecture is also relatively simple for this experiment: liquidity can remain continuously available without requiring the active range management that a V3 position would introduce.
BetterSwap allows any two VeChainThor tokens to form a pool, and LPs receive trading fees proportional to their liquidity contribution.
From a security-review perspective, BetterSwap underwent a Hacken Smart Contract Code Difference Assessment in 2025. Hacken reported 16 findings, all resolved. It is important to be precise, however: Hacken explicitly states that this was not a full security audit of the entire codebase, but an assessment of the modifications made relative to the underlying implementations. Hacken
For me, this makes BetterSwap V2 a reasonable candidate to discuss for an experimental pilot, while still acknowledging that smart-contract risk can never be considered eliminated.
5. Return any unused funds
The operational wallet should only use the exact amount of B3TR and VTHO required to establish the approved position.
If, after creating the pool, any B3TR or VTHO remains unused, those assets should be returned immediately to the appropriate DAO-controlled address rather than remaining in the operational wallet.
This should be verifiable on-chain.
6. Ownership of the LP position and fees
The LP tokens representing the position should remain under the control of the designated DAO/Foundation operational structure for the full duration of the experiment.
The key principle is that this would be DAO-owned liquidity, not a grant or subsidy to a private liquidity provider.
Therefore:
the underlying assets remain economically attributable to the DAO, and the trading fees generated during the six-month experiment should also accrue to the DAO-owned LP position.
This is central to the circular-economy idea.
The DAO would be using its existing resources to create market infrastructure, and that infrastructure could potentially generate value back for the DAO through trading fees.
Of course, fees are not guaranteed to offset impermanent loss, and profitability is not the only metric of success.
7. What happens after six months?
I think the proposal should have a clear end condition from day one.
At the end of the six-month pilot, unless the community approves an extension through another governance decision, the operational wallet should:
remove the DAO liquidity from the pool, redeem the LP position, and return all resulting B3TR and VTHO — including the value represented by accumulated trading fees — to the appropriate DAO-controlled addresses.
This would allow us to calculate the actual result of the experiment:
starting assets
vs.
ending assets + fees
vs.
impermanent loss.
The community could then decide whether to:
continue the pool,
increase its size,
modify the strategy,
or end the experiment permanently.
What would we measure?
The purpose of the six-month pilot would be to collect actual data rather than assume that the model will work.
I would evaluate at least:
- total trading volume;
- number of swaps;
- average and ending TVL;
- fees generated by the DAO position;
- change in B3TR and VTHO composition;
- estimated impermanent loss versus simply holding the assets;
- additional liquidity supplied by third parties;
- whether a meaningful B3TR/VTHO market develops organically.
The broader objective is not simply to create another trading pair.
It is to test whether VeBetterDAO can use assets already available within its ecosystem to create productive, DAO-owned liquidity and a small circular economy around B3TR and B3M0-generated VTHO.
If this model works on VeChain, I think it would also give us a much stronger foundation for revisiting the original cross-chain idea later.