Proposal to add ckOFFICEX to ICP DeFi Ecosystem

Governance NNS proposal discussions
1

Hello ICP Maxxis :wave:

The team at OfficeX would like to propose adding $OFFICEX to ICP via ck-bridge (the same one that powers ckUSDT & ckERC20 tokens). Related thread.

OfficeX Anonymous Workspace is a crypto clone of google work / microsoft 365, including docs, spreadsheets & cloud storage. Built on ICP and originally part of the Olympus Accelerator. Learn more about us here.

Internally our goal is to be the flagship dapp of Internet Computer. Externally we’re aiming for global dapp domination, spreading ICP to the rest of crypto-sphere and beyond (ie. onboarding web2 users onto web3).

For pragmatic reasons, we ended up launching $OFFICEX on BaseL2:

  • Rest of crypto world is familiar with EVM (defi default)
  • Faster & Familiar to our team, thus safer & more performant from a startup execution pov
  • ICP defi is a bit early and isolating. We saw a chance to grow the ICP ecosystem by starting externally, bringing net new users in
  • As a bootstrapped grassroot crypto team, we roll with the army we have

Our goal has always been to reside on ICP DeFi, and now we are at the stage where we can bridge cross-chain. After investigating various avenues, we think the best course of action is to use the existing chain-key canisters used by ckUDST & ckERC20 tokens. Thus we now would like to submit a proposal for ckOFFICEX to be added (but without the ck prefix so its cleaner, just OFFICEX).

Bridging to ICP DeFi is our #1 priority and blocking all other progress on OfficeX. It is very important to us that the ICP Community forms the foundation of our token at the lowest mcaps (sub-million), before we start marketing to Base/Solana/Ethereum people. If possible, we want to aim to complete the bridging process within a week so that we can blaze forward on user growth & product development.

Original BaseL2: 0x48808407d95f691D076C90337d42eE3836656990
Wrapped Solana: G2rTre2zBchZAcBB43wJw7pNF41QC9ugaAuMw8wFpHj6
Wrapped Binance: 0x54304511ad8C42333126173182DE140f2ED82c3C
Wrapped Ethereum: 0xa544feCbD25e47B9da6FcAfB0f3A83FC004677b5
via Wormhole Portal Bridge

As for why we didn’t fork our own chain fusion bridge, mainly the risk & context. From our perspective, bridges are 6/10 complexity but 10/10 risk and we would gladly opt to use a trusted 3rd party bridge to reduce stress, anxiety & paranoia. We believe most founders would too.

We hope ICP community & NNS DAOs will support our case to join the ck-bridge and bring OFFICEX onto ICP DeFi :pray: Thanks so much for your consideration & time!

3 Likes
2

Also, OfficeX alpha v0.1 is live on ICP mainnet.

Try it out as demo user principal “rs5y6-gqwqm-bfwc6-hxylz-wxbvc-cs36t-gnvpn-4oev6-725jh-wetlp-yae”

  1. Visit OfficeX | Storage
  2. Import the icp from seed phrase: “basic abstract virus van knock grape search source manage silent little eye”
  3. Go to OfficeX | Storage and click the refresh icon to sync with cloud (drivedb canister ID “ltlwh-dyaaa-aaaak-ao7yq-cai”)

Additional Details:
Factory Canister ID: “jjx63-5iaaa-aaaak-ao7xq-cai”
Canisters Github: GitHub - OfficeXApp/canisters

2 Likes
3

Great project!
The ecology of ICP needs your help
:clap::clap::clap:

2 Likes
4

This is an interesting use case you have presented, but I didn’t understand the reasons why you would want to remove the ck prefix if you are using a chain-key canister. It seems like all tokens in the ICP ecosystem that are bridged from other blockchains using chain-key canisters should hold the ck prefix. Otherwise it seems very confusing. Would you consider leaving the ck prefix in place?

1 Like
5

The ck prefix is confusing to most defi users who don’t know what ck means. They just know the token is on ICP and OFFICEX without ck fits their pre-existing mental models. It’s also a more elegant visual copywriting: OFFICEX vs ckOFFICEX. Overall we’d prefer to keep it clean without the ck prefix.

1 Like
6

Does anyone who we could tag or message to help move this along? @peterparker @Manu @Pete @gregory-demay @wpb

Our team was advised not to send test proposals to the canister. Would anyone be available to hop on a call to assist? We will pay it forward by helping the upcoming ICP founders emulating OfficeX’s go-to-market. Your help is greatly appreciated!