Should Athereum be on a separate subnet or as an Avalanche Native Token, deployed on the primary subnet?

The more I think about the economics of Athereum, the more I’m inclined to see Athereum launched as simply an Avalanche Native Token (ANT), basically deployed on x-chain or c-chain directly.

I’m curious about the community’s thoughts.


How will it be any different to X-ETH then?

X-ETH would be still be ETH, just wrapped. Claimed one-to-one, bi-directionally, for ETH.

On the other hand, Athereum would be a separate token and a copy of the entirety of the Ethereum address space.

is ath still interessting with the bridge ?

still think something like this must come from the eth community and they would need to pay for the deployment.

I havent seen Athereum as a utility, more as a novel project to show off Avalanches capabilities. With that being said I think that the community will be disappointed untless there is a bit of utility in the forked coins, namely the ability to stake them somehow. If they are just 1-1 tokens with no actual utility, it will come as a huge disappointment to many.

I actually don’t know what the intention of Athereum is. Is there a point to releasing it now? The bridges have more utility here imo. I’d rather the team focus on other, more pressing issues, than work on Athereum.


Seems like that could bloat the main chain, if all validators have to validate athereum. We have to assume athereum, like most forks, end up having little value, and putting it on the main chain forces all validators to validate it forever, right? If on a subnet, it could show the promise/capability of subnets without requiring mainnet validators. Or maybe I don’t fully understand the difference…

1 Like

With a simple to use trustless bridge just let people use X-ETH. Creating Athereum or an Athereum token just creates a testnet. If it’s ready for primetime lets just crack on.


Might be mistaken here, but Kevin is suggesting that it’s launched as just a token on the main chain, no validating required.

Having given it some more thought, I’m in agreement with Kevin here. Just launch it as an ANT and be done with it.

Why don’t we just airdrop AVAX to all ethereum holders on C-chain? I am not seeing any good reason to create another token or another primary subnet which has no difference to C-chain.

1 Like

Cosmos was planning on doing this it was called a hard spoon. I think it’s a good idea to get people involved in the ecosystem, but many might just dump the tokens so alot of people in the cosmos ecosystem view it as an inefficient way to go about it. I think it could bring many eth users to avalanche ecosystem, but it should only be done when there are more usable things on avalanche besides just staking.

I agree with @Ultioly point here. We have C-chain and soon a bridge that will consume most of the possible utility Athereum would have. In my opinion, Athereum should become a subnet on its own but, with a new set of features or a new iteration of the EVM that would distinguish it from the C-chain with something more than a ported state.