CIP-5: CELR as optional payment cBridge fees

Celer Improvement Proposal 5

CELR token as optional payment for bridging fees for cBridge


The CELR utility token is meant as a way to pay for/access services offered by the Celer Network. Offering the option for the CELR token to be used to pay for cBridge fees, build on Celer IM, would be in line with the raison d’être of the CELR token. This proposal asks the community to vote whether this ought to be implemented by the team.


The motivation is twofold. First, the CELR token is described as a core component of the Celer ecosystem and is to be used as a payment token for services on the Network. Second, with SGN 2.0 around the corner, it seems like a good opportunity to include this additional utility for CELR.


This proposal is merely a signal of interest and consensus among the Celer Community. The team has already announced that this feature is ready to be implemented.

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

1 Like

There are several factors that will need to take into consideration for this proposal.

  • What benefit(s) would a user get from using CELR token as payment for bridge fees? Without any benefits, why should anyone go through the trouble of purchasing CELR simply to pay for the bridge fees?
  • What are the potential negative impacts this could have on the fees and CELR token value? E.g.,
    • For every bridging tx, you need to pay for the gas fees for the networks in their native tokens (i.e., ETH, BNB), so should gas fees be covered by using CELR as well? If so, this means that CELR will need to be swapped for native tokens somewhere, somehow - which in turn will result in higher cost for end users due to swap fees, and contribute to sell volume.
    • If gas fees are not paid by CELR, now there will be step in the workflow - so rather than having two tokens in the tx (the native network token for gas, and the bridge token), you now have CELR transfer as an added step in the tx. How would this affect the cost?
    • Who should bear the potential extra costs of the above? If the users should, then why would they bother using CELR to pay for fees? If the LP or SGN should bear the fees to incentivise the users, then would that discourage LP or SGN validators/delegators from providing liquidity over the long run?
  • How would this impact the UX? Would this add extra steps (signing/approving) in the process?