RabbyHub
PulseChain Integration Improvements
Hey Rabby Team,
Great work on integrating PulseChain!
To stay ahead of other wallets, I suggest that you display assets from both chains for a given address. Let us use the following nomenclature for this issue:
- eHEX: HEX native to Ethereum
- HEX: HEX native to PulseChain
- HEX from Ethereum: HEX bridged into PulseChain from Ethereum
- USDC from Ethereum: USDC bridged into PulseChain from Ethereum
Rabby can distinguish assets by adding a small chain indicator on top of the token icon, which is an excellent solution.
Let me provide some examples using HEX (for the sake of simplicity and Richard Heart):
A wallet had HEX before the fork
Rabby should show:
- eHEX balances
- HEX balances
Status quo: The wallet only shows eHEX balances.
A wallet bridged in USDC and bought HEX (native to PulseChain) on PulseX
Rabby should show - before swapping:
- USDC (if the wallet has remaining balances on Ethereum)
- USDC from Ethereum
After swapping:
- USDC (if the wallet has remaining balances on Ethereum)
- HEX
Status quo: The wallet only shows eHEX balances. The USDC from Ethereum is shown correctly - HOWEVER, the token is labelled as USDC. For user safety, the token should be labelled as USDC from Ethereum to distinguish between USDC copies and bridged in USDC tokens.
A wallet bridged in eHEX
Rabby should show:
- HEX (if the wallet has remaining balances left on Ethereum)
- HEX from Ethereum
Status quo: The wallet shows both assets correctly.
The above examples can be applied to all assets. Let me know if this issue would be better suited for debank.com. I assume that debank.com is not yet tracking HEX (on PulseChain)?
Please note that the SEC is charging Hex Founder Richard Heart with misappropriating millions of dollars of investor funds from unregistered crypto asset securities offerings that raised more than $1 billion. These charges relate to Hex, PulseChain, and PulseX.
How does this tie in with a decentralized protocol like HEX? I mean, PulseChain is backed by a massive community of validators from all over, and hence PulseX is "just another" decentralized protocol running on PulseChain. It's key to remember there's a difference between what one person might do and the nature of a decentralized system.
I genuinely hope Rabby sticks with its support for decentralization. But hey, if you're thinking of removing support for PulseChain because of the SEC stuff, maybe it's only fair to do that for all other protocols mentioned by the SEC in their statements, right?
I'm not a Rabby developer so I'm not thinking of removing support for anything. I am also very pro decentralization, and I don't claim that the SEC's judgement is reliable in general, far from it in fact.
I certainly don't want to start a debate about what projects are or aren't scams (anyway this issue tracker would be totally the wrong place for that). I mentioned the fact about the SEC charges because I think it's important that anyone who goes near anything which is widely accused of being a scam should be fully aware of the facts so that they can make an informed decision about the risks before getting involved.