Re: [ANN] CHAMBY: serious memcoin on TON
by on 14/12/2025, 16:56:06 UTC
On the pros and (especially) cons of migrating to another blockchain.
These are the same thoughts I've already written about migration in other articles, but now in a more generalized form. I've decided to distill my thoughts into an article.
The idea of migrating to another blockchain periodically comes up in forum discussions. This idea arises in various contexts. Sometimes it's an attempt to revitalize the ecosystem and energize the community, sometimes it's criticism of the blockchain hosting the token (in our case, the TON token).
I've written many forum posts on this topic, criticizing such ideas as ill-considered and, in most cases, generally dangerous to the ecosystem. However, I also acknowledge that in some cases (force majeure), we'll likely be forced to do so. But first things first.
What do we mean by migrating to another blockchain? This means two things:
1. Completely abandon and stop supporting the current smart contract on the old blockchain (TON), and
2. Create a new smart contract on the new blockchain and attempt to transfer all resources—holders and liquidity—to it.
I will list all the disadvantages and difficulties of migration.
1. First, the very need for migration is often far-fetched and inspired by superficial reasons.
2. Second, choosing a new blockchain is not easy. There is a high probability that consensus will not be achieved, and a split will occur in the community. For example, some will want to migrate to Ethereum, some to Solana, some to Tron, and still others somewhere else. A split and the loss of a portion of the community is a significant drawback.
3. There are no perfect blockchains, and the option that gains the majority will also be imperfect in some ways and even inferior to the old one in some ways. It's entirely possible that someone will want to migrate to another blockchain soon. A few irresponsible migrations will likely kill the project completely.
4. It's important to understand that it won't be possible to completely transfer resources from the old blockchain. Some resources will remain locked in the old smart contract. For example, we have many burned LP tokens on the DeDust exchange.
5. Many holders will be unwilling to migrate or too lazy to do so. Some holders are "dust holders"—those who don't see the economic viability of migrating because their tokens are worth less than the commission or comparable to it.
6. The migration mechanism itself can be either via a bridge or by burning tokens on the old blockchain and issuing new tokens proportionally on the new blockchain. This is a fairly centralized process and will be fraught with errors, conflicts, and resource loss. The project relies on enthusiasm, and it's very difficult to carry out this work without economic incentives.
7. Departing from the old blockchain would mean a complete loss of all the work the active community invested time and money into. All the work that was done to build the community (token creation, manual airdrops) becomes meaningless.
8. Frequent blockchain changes indicate a poorly thought-out project philosophy and a lack of healthy conservatism. I'll discuss this in a future article.
These are the same thoughts I've already written about migration in other articles, but now in a more generalized form. I've decided to distill my thoughts into an article.
The idea of migrating to another blockchain periodically comes up in forum discussions. This idea arises in various contexts. Sometimes it's an attempt to revitalize the ecosystem and energize the community, sometimes it's criticism of the blockchain hosting the token (in our case, the TON token).
I've written many forum posts on this topic, criticizing such ideas as ill-considered and, in most cases, generally dangerous to the ecosystem. However, I also acknowledge that in some cases (force majeure), we'll likely be forced to do so. But first things first.
What do we mean by migrating to another blockchain? This means two things:
1. Completely abandon and stop supporting the current smart contract on the old blockchain (TON), and
2. Create a new smart contract on the new blockchain and attempt to transfer all resources—holders and liquidity—to it.
I will list all the disadvantages and difficulties of migration.
1. First, the very need for migration is often far-fetched and inspired by superficial reasons.
2. Second, choosing a new blockchain is not easy. There is a high probability that consensus will not be achieved, and a split will occur in the community. For example, some will want to migrate to Ethereum, some to Solana, some to Tron, and still others somewhere else. A split and the loss of a portion of the community is a significant drawback.
3. There are no perfect blockchains, and the option that gains the majority will also be imperfect in some ways and even inferior to the old one in some ways. It's entirely possible that someone will want to migrate to another blockchain soon. A few irresponsible migrations will likely kill the project completely.
4. It's important to understand that it won't be possible to completely transfer resources from the old blockchain. Some resources will remain locked in the old smart contract. For example, we have many burned LP tokens on the DeDust exchange.
5. Many holders will be unwilling to migrate or too lazy to do so. Some holders are "dust holders"—those who don't see the economic viability of migrating because their tokens are worth less than the commission or comparable to it.
6. The migration mechanism itself can be either via a bridge or by burning tokens on the old blockchain and issuing new tokens proportionally on the new blockchain. This is a fairly centralized process and will be fraught with errors, conflicts, and resource loss. The project relies on enthusiasm, and it's very difficult to carry out this work without economic incentives.
7. Departing from the old blockchain would mean a complete loss of all the work the active community invested time and money into. All the work that was done to build the community (token creation, manual airdrops) becomes meaningless.
8. Frequent blockchain changes indicate a poorly thought-out project philosophy and a lack of healthy conservatism. I'll discuss this in a future article.