Frequently Asked Questions | Symbiosis

Find answers to the most popular questions about our crypto exchange liquidity protocol, the SIS token, blockchain bridging and how does the Symbiosis protocol work.

Vision and Product

Why should I care about Symbiosis?
Our vision is that users need a simple solution for moving their liquidity across multi chains; current solutions like bridges create liquidity fragmentation and are not trivial for end users.
So then what is Symbiosis?
We have a vision that a multi-chain world needs an easy-to-use solution, as Uniswap. Such a solution should allow any to any token swap on every chain, so users don't need to look for another AMM or bridge.
Interesting, but how does it work?

Relayers Nodes and Staking

Could you please provide further information on the relayers and Symbiosis correspondent network?
A relayer is a specific software run by an organization or individual in a decentralized p2p network, not owned by anyone. The software listens for transactions on one blockchain, reaches a consensus with other relayers, and calls smart contracts on another blockchain. A relayer neither holds any of users' funds nor sends money transfers across networks.
The Symbiosis correspondent network is a network of relayers, not ruled by anyone, but operating in a p2p manner, so all relayer nodes are equal. There is no leader in this network, and the team of Symbiosis neither controls it.
Do bridge operators (relayers) receive rewards for bridging blockchains?
They do not receive any reward for bridging. However, they do receive rewards as a part of relayers consensus distribution.
If you ask who is paying gas fees for bridging, the answer is relayers pay for the gas, which is precharged from a user.
What are the current compatible blockchains that are supported or will be supported by the Symbiosis protocol?
Technically, the Symbiosis protocol can support the chains listed below:
  • L1/L2 EVM compatible blockchain (with the right Solidity version).
  • WASM blockchain (Solana, Terra, Near).
Practically, we will support blockchains that get market traction and are appreciated by the users. Since there are legal risks of integrating new blockchains, we consult legal advisors before integrating any.
Supported blockchains on Mainnet
  • Ethereum,
  • Binance Smart Chain (BSC),
  • Polygon,
  • Avalanche,
  • Boba,
  • Telos,
  • Aurora,
  • Milkomeda
Supported blockchains on Testnet
  • Ethereum (Rinkeby),
  • Binance (Testnet),
  • Polygon (Mumbai),
  • Avalanche (Fuji),
  • Boba (Testnet),
  • Telos (Testnet),
  • Aurora (Testnet),
  • Milkomeda (Testnet)
Coming soon
  • Near


Govern the Symbiosis DAO and DAO Treasury.
Who can submit governance proposals on the DAO?
Any token holder (and only token holders!) can submit governance proposals. Relayers stake their tokens in the Staking contracts.
Does a token holder need to stake one’s tokens before one can vote on proposals?
Our goal is to design a DAO, which locks tokens before token holders can vote for proposals. However, this design brings legal risks. We are actively researching this topic, considering legal risks. So far, we will proceed with the current design (without locks) appreciated by the market.
Are there rewards in the form of additional SIS provided for participation in governance functions?
Token holders don't get any reward for participating in the governance process.


What is the difference between Symbiosis and ThorChain?
  • First and foremost, at Symbiosis, we use the classic AMM pools model without the need to pair every token to our native token (RUNE in the case of ThorChain). As a result, it brings better capital efficiency for end-users (less price slippage) and liquidity providers (less impermanent loss).
    While ThorChain claims that CLP is more capital efficient than XYK+ bep30, that is still not yet proved, as argued in the community here. We witnessed how Bancor Network (they were the first AMM on Ethereum and they did the same pairing to native asset BNT) lost the market to Uniswap with the XYK model due to a better trading experience.
  • We have only two liquidity pools for each blockchain pair, while ThorChain has x+y where x is the number of assets on one chain, and y on another:
This actually opens us unique design path with some outstanding improvements over ThorChain.

Problem Solving

How do we solve the problem of the uneven exchange direction between networks and, consequently, a balance increase of one asset on one network and a decrease on the other?
The simple solution to this problem is AMM pools, which design perfectly handles this problem.
At Symbiosis, we rely on proven solutions for Uniswap-like and Curve-like models that have been confirmed to be efficient over time. A liquidity pool between two networks is always deployed on one of these networks (usually, on the one with fewer transaction fees).
The ratio of the numbers of assets in the pool towards one another determines their prices. With an increase in one of the directions of exchange, the ratio of assets changes, and the price of each of them comes to a “non-market” state.
At this point, arbitrageurs come into play. Arbitrageurs are an important element of the AMM protocols. They are competing for the right to buy an asset from the pool at a discount price.
💡 There is an excellent description of this process in the documentation provided by Paradigm
There is one difference in the implementation of Symbiosis pools: one of the pool’s assets is a wrapped representation of the source token. Thus, arbitrageurs should execute the bridging scenario (Token A <> sToken A) in addition to the usual scenario of buying an asset on the open market. It’s done to transfer source tokens from (or into) the Symbiosis protocol and manage them in the pools. The stable pools have their peculiarities and can potentially work between several networks at once.
How will you incentivize TVL for the stablecoin pool?
There two directions:
  • Fees collected from all swaps going through that pool,
  • Farming incentivization.
The non-EVM chain swaps, how will that work?
There are two cases:
  • EVM-incompatible blockchains with smart contracts (e.g. Solana, Near):
    We will support them as long as they allow the EdDSA/ECDSA key generation. Integration complexity depends on the virtual machines and the smart contract languages they use.
  • Blockchains without smart contacts (e.g. Bitcoin):
    Definitely, we cannot execute the AMM logic directly on them. However, if they support ECDSA and HTLC contracts (hash time lock), we can bridge the native assets since our Relayers support that. So as for UX, it will be similar to swapping ETH -> BTC, and slightly different for BTC -> ETH.