Debate: Which L2 solution should come first Arbitrum or Polygon?

I’ll keep this simple. I enjoy LPing at Bancor for the IL Protection and LM Rewards, and have extreme confidence in the team’s ability to execute. However, I question the wisdom of betting on Arbitrum while an alternative solution works and gains momentum at an exponential pace – Polygon.

Recently, I decided to bridge some assets to Polygon and explore its ecosystem and my experience has been excellent. I know the plan is for Bancor to fine tune its offering and launch v3 before it goes multi-chain, but I urge the team to consider prioritizing an integration with Polygon before Arbitrum. I know that I’m not alone in this sentiment.

As of June 10th, according to DappRadar:

  1. Avg. Daily Transaction Volumes on Polygon exceeded Ethereum

  2. While Sushi lags on Polygon compared to Ethereum, “the exchange only attracted 26 new users on May 1. However, that number quickly rose to more than 1,000 the next week, and about 4,000 on May 20.”

  3. Preliminary data from June shows Polygon’s activity is increasing compared to May while Ethereum’s stagnates.

  4. MATIC’s token performance could mean continued adoption as more traders and LPs grow comfortable with the network

  5. Gas is significantly cheaper than Ethereum

  6. Transactions confirm lightning fast. Personally, I was able to claim and stake from seven pools within one (1) minute for pennies. Transaction failures have been a common issue encountered when people attempt to stake to Bancor LPs, and have cost a lot of folks a good deal of ETH.

I hope I’ve laid the foundation for a fruitful discussion with the goal of accelerating Bancor’s arrival on Polygon over its integration with Arbitrum.


Seems like both should be an option too


If we only had to choose one I vote for arbitrum. Polygon is popular for now but Arbitrum seems more promising once it launches.


I don’t think it should be only one integration, but I do think that Polygon is here and Arbitrum isn’t; therefore, we shouldn’t miss out on staking a claim in an ecosystem that is clearly booming while waiting for the other to launch.


I also hear very, very good things about Polygon. I am not a tech expert but since there is a working solution gaining momentum as we speak I would heavily vote for Polygon.


Polygon has held up well during this meltdown, and continues to draw a lot of interest. I’m going to formalize this into a proposal for Snapshot with a launch deadline of “Early 3Q21” ideally prior to Labor Day to take advantage of the return from the season increase in trading volumes as the summer ends.

1 Like

just like to remind, the reason we haven’t launched on L2 yet is because of the focus on the gas efficiency of the contracts. it’s much easier to first refine the product and then go on L2 than having to tweak everything later. I do think the team wants to launch V3 with these upgrades as well but L2 is definitely next on the list after the upgrades.


Would say Arbitrum is the best candidate as an actual rollup. Matic is having some issues scaling we should be watching while v3 is in the works.


On yesterday’s call, the team stated that it is their intention to launch Bancor on Polygon following the release of v3. The team also indicated that v3 will have features implemented on a rolling basis; therefore, this presents an opportunity to integrate Polygon after the launch of v3 but before some components of v3 are live.

In light of these disclosures, should I create a proposal to launch Bancor on Polygon after the successful launch of v3.0, but before, say, the end of Q321 (Sep 30). That would give the team the time needed to roll out core elements of v3 and result in Bancor’s bringing a more robust offering to Polygon and other L2 solutions.

Polygon has some safety concerns: 8 Multisig addresses, that might be owned by a single entity. Polygons Ethereum scaling solution is a sidechain, relying on PoS consensus and the trust in it’s validators to be non malicious.

Personally I’m waiting for Arbitrum release to ape in with a low amount of funds (most probably funds from polygon) and after 1-2 months fully transition.

Can you give links? That’s kind of a dealbreaker for me.

Chris Blec’s Defiwatch letter to polygon is a good summary of the multisig issue.

Finematics offers a great explanation of how polygon works.

1 Like

Oh, no no no no, no, Ṉ̶̢̡̬̹͕̗̱̣̭͍̀̏̎̀̈̓̐͑͜͠O̴̡̐́͊̿̽̅̏̇͠͝͝.

If anyone thinks for one second that I’d knowingly support a project, let alone an entire blockchain, that relies on a multisig (especially one this poorly handled) to keep the whole thing safe, you’re gravely mistaken. My answer to this is we should re-prioritize for Arbitrum, and ditch any plans for Polygon until they change.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me how Polygon works at this point; alone, the fact that their security model hinges on a 5-of-8 multsig should be enough to sink the project. It’s immensely disappointing that such tomf–kery has gotten as far as it has in defi. Did we whitelist this? If we did, can we revoke it? I don’t want it anywhere near our system.

I’m honestly shocked that the team is still so set on Polygon given this glaring security issue (and kinda disappointed if they knew and still wanted to go ahead with it), especially considering that Arbitrum is live now (in closed beta for the moment). Arbitrum also makes it clear in that blog post that they intend to go fully decentralized; Polygon, from what I can tell, has no such intention.

I think that building on the Polygon chain as it stands right now would speak volumes about how we value security (to be clear, it would say that we don’t care about it nearly as much as we should), and I would not support any proposals to do that to ourselves. Right now, unless a better L2 comes along, I support Arbitrum 100%.


Polygon AKA Matic has been whitelisted but I don’t think repealing the whitelist is a good idea at all. Matic is one of our best pools. The multisig issue is real but not a deal-breaker, most of the multi-sig wallet holders are trustworthy I’m sure polygon will get to fixing this anyway.

Here are the signers :

  • Quickswap
  • Curve
  • Polygon
  • Horizon Games
  • Cometh

I believe binance is one of em aswell.


I’d rather the security of an entire blockchain (and by extension, whatever system we build on top of it; your DAO’s security is only as good as that of the blockchain it lives on) be guaranteed by code than by meat. Code can’t be coerced by governments/other such malicious entities, because it doesn’t experience fear, it doesn’t care if it dies, it doesn’t have a family nor possessions it cares about, and it doesn’t break the rules; meat does all of those things. I’m not against Polygon in principle, but no matter what their promise, I cannot ignore the risks inherent in their (meat-based) security system, and I think it would be unwise to ignore them.

Upon consideration, I think you’re possibly right about not repealing the whitelist. My guts tell me we should distance ourselves until they fix that issue; but I can’t find an argument for that other than, we have no assurance that the signers couldn’t be coerced into doing funny business, or that if they were coerced, they couldn’t cause catastrophic damage. Although I feel like that should be enough to put most people off, evidently it is not. :thinking:

Based on the Temp Check: Which L2 or side chain should Bancor prioritize after V3 is release?, It appears that the community agrees that Arbitrum should remain the first L2 the team should implement.

I understand your concern re: the multisig wallet, but I am comfortable with it for the reason @tenzent elaborated.

One must recognize that Polygon continues to gain momentum among highly-respected top-tier DeFi protocols most recently Balancer, AAVE has already been on MATIC for months and Polygon now boasts more Defi protocols than BSC. (Polygon DeFi Ecosystem - List of the Best Polygon Projects)