We are already running on proof of authority with OmiseGO as the single operator on testnet, but this question must be asking when we might see PoA on external testnet or when we might start burning tokens. For reasons given in the State of the OMG Ecostystem post a couple of weeks ago, we aren't putting public dates on goals and milestones. No doubt this is frustrating, but giving dates also comes with frustration.
Since we aren't able to provide much useful information for this question, we'll be answering an extra question below.
We still feel it is best to not give hard numbers from our research and analysis until we are closer to being able to back them up.
From the development point of view, we have a deep understanding of the payment tech stack. We know where and how disruption needs to happen. We also have the advantage of being under the same umbrella as Omise Payment; a company that has first-hand experience building and growing a payment business. As such, we understand the payment landscape, particularly in Asia. We understand user behavior - how customers/payees and merchants think and behave. We know the pain points and what needs to be addressed.
We are solving a real and immediate problem – a problem we, as a company face, and also problems users face. Data show that there is a demand for alternative payment methods, and we are in the right place and right time, with a very clear and achievable goal. We have a strong technical design leveraging a public scalable blockchain framework and a team with experience in the tech and financial sectors.
In 3 years we expect the OMG Network to be fully featured, public and decentralized, with a life of its own; while OmiseGO as a company will continue to build volume on the network by providing support to implementers on leveraging the OMG tech stack for their business needs, exploring new and more complex use cases as the technology evolves.
The exact mechanism used for buying and burning OMG has not been finalised, as the team will continue to research the most optimal solution as development of the network continues to progress towards the PoA phase. One option being considered is using a designated contract (here's an example of a work in progress) to perform the "buy-back-and-burn" of OMG. Sorry that's not the most definitive of answers, but it would be unwise for the team to commit to a particular method too early.
There were many factors that were considered when we were working on the OMG DEX design. Each of these factors have effects on such as safety, user experience, liquidity etc. The design takes into account funds safety as a high priority, whilst still creating a market where good liquidity will form.
Two features worth mentioning are:
When users send funds to a venue when placing an order, the user's funds are kept safe by the OMG Network through 'Restricted Custody'.
The OMG DEX is designed to be fair and to provide the transparency that is required for quality liquidity
The main thing to note is that the ODEX is an integrated layer in a full stack platform, while Kyber, 0x and most other DEXes/protocols have a more specific scope. As such, the ODEX design is tailored specifically to the needs of OMG, and to the priorities we’ve identified for encouraging adoption of the platform.
Kyber and 0x are actually two great comparisons, so let's look at those two. Very concisely, Kyber focuses on providing liquidity and 0x is an open protocol for p2p exchange. Kyber focuses on providing liquidity through a reserves pool - potentially a complement rather than a competitor.
The ODEX’s restricted custody with off-chain order matching works in a similar way to 0x’s relayer model, but with the benefit of the trade flow data from all venues being connected to the OMG Network. Data from all trades executed on venues must be submitted to the OMG Network for settlement; this provides transparency in pricing so users can make more informed choices, provides the security benefits of on-chain settlement as well as more effectively combining the liquidity provided by all participating venues.
Late bonus response, because we're finally able to give a complete answer:
The roadmap update from Cosmos was a general explanation of the order of events moving forward, including the point at which open source DEX software will be built and made available for anyone to use. OmiseGO's contribution was simply to give feedback about the clarity of that message.
The two main points to take from the update are that Tendermint is not pursuing efforts to build specific DEXes at this time, only generalized DEX software; and that the DEX software is slated to be implemented after both mainnet launch and IBC (Inter-Blockchain Connectivity) are completed. We'd still love to see an OMG zone on Cosmos when the infrastructure is in place, but given current circumstances the spoon proposed in April is not moving forward at this point.
We’ll do our best to finish clearing up ZOMG-specific questions here, including some of the statements that have been made in the Cosmos community channels.
The spoon was OmiseGO’s idea. When the decision was made to pivot away from Honte, the interim solution we had been working on with the Tendermint team, we looked for a way to continue to align with the Cosmos ecosystem and this seemed to be it. We had conversations with the Cosmos and Tendermint teams and got their feedback before putting out the announcement.
Tendermint made it clear from the beginning that their role would be in building DEX software, not operating it. OmiseGO was also clear that our core team would not be developing this platform. The plan was to turn this DEX over to a third party from the OMG community - built by Tendermint, supported by OmiseGO and stewarded by a third entity.
There was an entity from the OMG community which was willing to be the steward for this project (we absolutely will not name the entity so please don't ask). That entity has recently decided, in light of various uncertainties and an inability to come to a workable agreement between all parties, that it will not be able to go forward with that stewardship after all.
We’re disappointed by the way this has turned out - we wanted to work with Cosmos and Tendermint because we considered them friends and respected their tech. But they need to focus on getting their core product out, and we understand and support that. We’ll be doing the same.
We're genuinely sorry for the confusion over the last couple of weeks. But we wanted to give a complete and final answer, which meant waiting until we had closure on the situation ourselves.