VNX Franc VCHF

Comments

• 

  lclc · 28 Apr 2025 · ▲ 1

  Considering the base rate is 3.00% (meaning the Effective Interest for minting will be higher), why would anyone lock their VCHF for ZCHF?

  Or am I missing something?

  • 

    xdecentralix · 28 Apr 2025

    This is a stablecoin bridge, so it‘s not a „normal“ collateral to be added – the 1:1 minting and redeeming of ZCHF vs. VCHF doesn‘t incur any fees, but helps to maintain ZCHF‘s peg to CHF 1 (and VCHF‘s peg).

  • 

    luziusmeisser · 09 May 2025

    You could exactly lock your VCHF to get ZCHF and then benefit from the 3% interest in ZCHF.

• 

  surfaceflinger · 28 Apr 2025 · ▲ 3

  Briefly checked but it appears to contain freeze function, "owner", and has under 50 holders.

  • 

    xdecentralix · 28 Apr 2025

    I‘d argue the first two can be expected from a centralized stablecoin? (just like USDC and USDT have such functions?)

  • 

    mathewmeconry · 28 Apr 2025

    Agreed. freeze and owner functions are not uncommon for stable coins that aren't decentralized but hold assets to keep the peg.

  • 

    surfaceflinger · 28 Apr 2025

    Just because it's not uncommon doesn't mean it's good.
    Locking VCHF is going to mint ZCHF, right? What happens if the locked VCHF gets frozen? Are those ZCHF then backed by a frozen token?

  • 

    surfaceflinger · 28 Apr 2025

    This was a concern for BUIDL (#51). I don't get the difference between a stablecoin bridge and collateral so please enlighten me, the post above used term "minting" which assumes the same final effect as borrow

  • 

    mathewmeconry · 28 Apr 2025

    Just because it's not uncommon doesn't mean it's good.

    💯

    Locking VCHF is going to mint ZCHF, right? What happens if the locked VCHF gets frozen?

    This would mean they freeze the whole bridge and thus make the bridge inoperable. So no VCHF for ZCHF or ZCHF for VCHF can be exchanged anymore. Anyhow I doubt that they would do such a thing, especially with the direct line of contact with @mariavnx

    Are those ZCHF then backed by a frozen token?

    Yes. One could consider to extend the current code for the bridge to extend the bridge with a loss reporting feature, so that the equity can take the hit for the lost tokens. Similar to how a loss is handled when a position is challenged and the payout is not enough to cover the lost ZCHF.

    This was a concern for BUIDL (#51)

    The main concern was the whitelisting feature which prevents the challenge system from working properly, because the challenger would need to be whitelisted by BUIDL

    I don't get the difference between a stablecoin bridge and collateral so please enlighten me, the post above used term "minting" which assumes the same final effect as borrow

    The bridge has 2 key differences compared to a Position.

    1. The bridge requires the other token to be also a CHF-pegged token. So it exchanges the token with ZCHF 1:1.
    2. The bridge has a fixed expiration date and cannot be extended. A position can be extended by rolling over to a new position with the PositionRoller. This is not possible for the bridge.
       So once the bridge has expired no more VCHF can be exchanged for ZCHF while the other way around will be possible until no more VCHF is hold in the bridge.

    I hope this answers your questions and helps you to make a decision if you support this proposal or not.

    Disclaimer:
    The functionality of the bridge is based on the StablecoinBridge.sol contract that was previously used for the XCHF token. I don't know if the VNX team will use the same contract or not.

  • 

    surfaceflinger · 28 Apr 2025

    Anyhow I doubt that they would do such a thing, especially with the direct line of contact with @ mariavnx

    That's not really a good argument imo, it's still allowing a single organization to do such thing in a place where it should be impossible.

    The main concern was the whitelisting feature which prevents the challenge system from working properly, because the challenger would need to be whitelisted by BUIDL

    Main concern - sure, but freezing/seizing was one of concerns.

    Yes. One could consider to extend the current code for the bridge to extend the bridge with a loss reporting feature, so that the equity can take the hit for the lost tokens. Similar to how a loss is handled when a position is challenged and the payout is not enough to cover the lost ZCHF.

    It has been already proposed onchain, so if that's missing then it should be vetoed and this functionality should be added.

  • 

    mathewmeconry · 28 Apr 2025

    It has been already proposed onchain

    Just saw it. The bridge is the same as it was used for XCHF and doesn't have any features to report a loss.

  • 

    luziusmeisser · 09 May 2025

    Yes, the bridge introduces a dependency on VCHF and in the worst case, we can suffer a loss of 2 million that would need to be repaid from the equity pool using a new special purpose contract that does not exist yet.

    However, I prefer to keep things as simple as possible and I like that we can reuse existing and audited code for the bridge without adding new complications.

    Note that even if the VCHF are (temporarily) frozen, they still represent a claim towards the issuer. A large ZCHF holder could approach VNX and demand redemption.

    Overall, having a bridge to a centralized stablecoin is very beneficial for ZCHF as it allows fast issuance and redemptions without going through loans, which are designed as long term instruments.

  • 

    surfaceflinger · 09 May 2025

    Note that even if the VCHF are (temporarily) frozen, they still represent a claim towards the issuer. A large ZCHF holder could approach VNX and demand redemption.

    Could you describe a scenario what happens if someone

    1. bridges VCHF to ZCHF
    2. Swaps ZCHF on Uniswap to something else
    3. Someone else swaps something to ZCHF on Uniswap and receives these ZCHF
    4. VCHF freezes the bridge

    Why would that person buying ZCHF with Uniswap care about contacting some kind of company - at this point remove decentralization from strengths on the website. It's a cryptocurrency, you're keeping it to not care about companies doing dumb stuff.

    If you really want ZCHF to be dependant on some kind of company then at least make it automatic and repaid by equity.

    as an enduser, this proposal pmuch makes me want to avoid Frankencoin after this passes but at the same point there's no better option.

  • 

    surfaceflinger · 09 May 2025

    I like that we can reuse existing and audited code for the bridge

    A vulnerability was found during an audit which was accepted because ZCHF was getting bootstrapped. ZCHF is already bootstrapped and there's no need to reintroduce a vulnerability again.

  • 

    luziusmeisser · 09 May 2025

    A vulnerability was found during an audit which was accepted because ZCHF was getting bootstrapped. ZCHF is already bootstrapped and there's no need to reintroduce a vulnerability again.

    Decentralized does not mean that the system has zero exposure to centralized entities. It means that there is a healthy balance and good risk management so that there is no single dependency that threatens the stability of the Frankencoin. If the Frankencoin wants to be integrated in the ecosystem, it makes sense to also integrate with centralized entities to the extent that the introduced risks are manageable.

    In the security audit, we said that we would move towards liquidity amplification of uniswap pools, as implemented in this unaudited prototype:
    https://github.com/Frankencoin-ZCHF/FrankenCoin/blob/amplifier/contracts/Amplifier.sol

    However, even with such an Amplifier, the aforementioned risks are not eliminated. If someone sells a lot of VCHF and buys ZCHF through an amplified Uniswap pool, we will have the same problem when the VCHF are frozen or when their is a depeg to 0. These approaches are more elaborate, but in the end, they only hide and do not truly eliminate the dependency.

• 

  jonk93 · 28 Apr 2025 · ▲ 1

  Hello all!

  From the Association we support this proposal! Having a bridge between VCHF and ZCHF would allow us to do a couple of things:

  • Have a very efficient on- and offramp via SwissBorg and via VNX directly.
  • Allow us to access liquidity cheaply in order to be able to scale liquidity on places such as UniSwap, Curve or Morpho
  • React quickly to large shocks in demand/supply and keep the peg stable until the slower CDP system can react.

  It is similar to the MakerDAO PSM and is an important step for the Frankencoin to grow!

• 

  mathewmeconry · 28 Apr 2025 · ▲ 1

  Are the contracts open sourced? I was able to find some with the help of etherscan and they look safe to me, but having the full sources to get a bigger picture how these contracts interact with each other would be nice.

• 

  0x8008 · 29 Apr 2025 · ▲ 3

  This VCHF ordeal absolutely reeks

• 

  AndxyO · 17 Feb 2026 · ▲ 1

  VCHF liquidity on ethereum got really low.
  On dexscreener I couldn't find a pool.
  Found just one against weth on geckoterminal.
  https://www.geckoterminal.com/eth/pools/0x80d21876cc9e11f1d000b4dee9c73aa1bac31919

• 

  luziusmeisser · 19 Feb 2026 · ▲ 1

  Note that the swap module with VCHF was deployed with an expiration date.

  That's the "horizon" constant you can see here:
  https://etherscan.io/address/0x3b71ba73299f925a837836160c3e1fec74340403#readContract

  It expires on April 15th and I for one would not propose to renew it.

  

  • 

    surfaceflinger · 19 Feb 2026

    What will happen then? Will the bridge become one-way only? As in minting ZCHF with VCHF won't be possible anymore, but it'll be possible to withdraw VCHF?

  • 

    luziusmeisser · 19 Feb 2026

    Yes, it will become one-way.

  • 

    AndxyO · 23 Feb 2026

    So, that's fine I would say.