I tell people about the Cybro platform. They are very interested. Passive income in DeFi is very popular with people. People especially like the interface, where everything is intuitive. I am not saying that the platform is now at an early stage. People see the potential and want to invest. But there is a big problem that repels people when they want to start using the platform - the Blast network
Transactions are long, support for the Blast network from many wallets is lame, the Blast network fees are huge.
I often hear - if it were not for Blast, I would have come in. A good project, but ā¦ Too inconvenient.
So I have a question. Has such a possibility of āmovingā the platform been considered? Itās a shame to see that the team is working on the project, but all efforts are not appreciated due to the toxicity of the Blast network
Could you please clarify ā do you mean the network on which the token is deployed, or the network on which the vaults are deployed?
Regarding the vault contracts, we marked ALL of the Vaults on Blast as deprecated. Now users donāt see them on the Vaults/One-Clicks screen. They only see them if they have deposits in any of them. We recommend to withdraw the funds from the Vaults on Blast and use all the others.
Regarding the narratives and style, we already changed the description to āCYBRO is a multichain AI-powered earn marketplaceā without the Blast word. We are also redesigning our app to make it look not like Blast
Regarding the token, we already bridged the token to BSC and Eth. The main chain is Blast because most of the holders have the LCYBRO on Blast. In case of Blast shutdown we will issue the same tokens on BSC. We are still searching for the best scenario of transitioning the token from Blast to BSC.
I was referring to the network where the token is deployed ā and youāve already answered my question. I truly appreciate that, and Iām glad to hear your reply.
Apologies in advance if this sounds like a naive question, butā¦ I wonāt be able to sleep if I donāt ask:
Have you considered zkSync as a possible network for migrating the token?
I wonāt go into all the pros I personally see in it, but to me, it seems like a highly promising ecosystem for a project like Cybro.
One point I feel strongly about ā and simply canāt leave unmentioned ā is this:
There are currently no major yield aggregators on zkSync. Cybro could be the first.
Additionally, there seem to be positive trends in institutional interest toward Layer 2s (at least in my subjective view).
Once again, thank you for your reply ā it really is great news for me.
This is a big topic.
Of course, we considered zkSync. The number of transactions and users is very low on zk Sync. Of couse, being the only and first yield aggregator on a certain chain can be a plus. However, yield opportunities will be very limited, and the main metrics will be limited by the chain itself. Focusing on small new chains is a risky long-term strategy which may work out. Some protocols like ZeroLend can focus on such chains to get free grants or something, but in our point of view this can only be additional to the main business model.
It is better to focus on big chains with many investment options and offering more interesting strategies. This is why we switched to Base, Arbitrum, and others. You can check Beefyās quarterly report. Their main revenue streams come from these chains.
The best strategy for CYBRO is finding a niche on the market and focusing on this niche not depending on a certain chain. Our infrastructure is EVM-oriented and we can quickly add any new EVM chain. So at the moment we are pivoting to a more professional audience by developing some features for them. Weāll see how it goes. Maybe we will have to make a pivot again.
We saw many yield aggregators or lending protocols shutting down. We donāt want this to happen to CYBRO, this is why we try to pivot as many times as we can.