Updated Proposal to Increase Panda Related Trading Volumes and List PNDA


Getting PandaSwap tokens listed on CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap was attempted early on in the franchise, but unfortunately due to BSC node issues it seems that only the volume on PancakeSwap is counted when applying for listings. Since the majority of Panda/Rhino/Bamboo volume is on PandaSwap we were denied while many weaker projects got listed.

Listing the franchise tokens is crucial for bringing new users to the ecosystem; which in turn, is key for the long-term success of the project. Aiming to have the token listings occur after the launch of soft-synths on Polly but before the launch of soft-synths on Panda will be beneficial. This timing is important because the soft-synths on Polly will provide an example of the future product coming to Panda. Seeing this should incentivize users; new and old alike, to provide liquidity and farm the governance token with a more long-term project-oriented outlook instead of treating it like a farm and dump scam.

After discussing with community members, it seems that just applying to get PNDA listed and waiting to list RHINO and BAMBOO will increase our chances of success. So, this proposal has been created with the aim of just listing PNDA by increasing volumes on PancakeSwap V2.


A good way to obtain the required volume for a listing would be to incentivize trading between exchanges via arbitrage opportunities which can easily be created through the following steps:

  1. Add 50k liquidity using fees collected from PandaSwap to the Panda/BNB pool on PancakeSwap V2.

  2. Boost Pool Weight for the Panda/BNB Pancake pools to 40,000 on Panda farms to incentivize liquidity.

  3. Ensure treasury LPs cannot be staked on farms.

Important notes:

It is important to note that this proposal seeks to use funds in the wallet for collecting fees from Panda (Binance Smart Chain Token Holdings 0x8f5d46fcadeca93356b70f40858219bb1fbf6088 ).

These funds will be used to purchase our own token, which will be staked with BNB as Cake-LP. This means the community still owns the funds and we our simply putting them to work by investing in our own protocol. If the community decides at any point to do something else with the liquidity, it can be re-purposed.

This proposal will be voted on strictly by the Panda community. There is currently a proposal for setting up a governance structure for Panda which can be found here: Governance PandaSwap - BSC


I would like to re-state my reasons for proposing that we provide liquidity to PancakeSwap V2 and attempt to get the Panda franchise tokens listed on CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap.

First, I think it will give the Panda project more legitimacy thus providing new users with more confidence in the project.

Second, an influx of new users is needed for the Panda ecosystem. New users bring more liquidity but most importantly they bring new ideas which helps to build a stronger community.

Third, by creating a new heavily weighted farming pool we can give new users an opportunity to participate in Panda governance, which will further decentralize and strengthen the community.


Thankyou for taking the time to make these proposals, It is very much appreciated by all of the galaxies. We are happy to see members of the community take initiative and follow the BIP process. Kudos to you for being the first.

I’ll give you my thoughts:

  • have you considered starting with just one PNDA pool or multiple PNDA pools and going from there? It would concentrate resources towards one asset. Once PNDA is listed I feel it would be a lot easier to get others listed.

  • Once other products are released on panda, there may be a natural uptick in volume, especially if the products introduce a burning mechanism. Could it be best to time any boosts in incentives with that to maximize our chances? Or even wait to see if that alone is enough?


Very nicely written @Cookies. Thank you for taking the time to revise your idea.

This being the first proposal being voted solely by the Panda community is such a good idea as it will primarily impact the Panda ecosystem.

I do support this proposal.


Thanks! You make some good points and I do agree with the first one. It could be wise to start with just PNDA pools. That being said, there are already pools for PNDA and RHINO on Pancake V1 so perhaps just increasing the liquidity and incentives for PNDA/BNB and RHINO/BNB then migrating them to Pancake V2 would be sufficient. I personally think it would be nice to see at least PNDA get listed before products are released on panda and then we can continue from there, however, I do understand your reasons for wanting to wait and appreciate you sharing your thoughts.


I would support this proposal as long as the launch/introduction of these pools is just before the launch of the synths/indexes (2-3 weeks in advance).

This combined with the sucess of Polly (hopefully!) and additiinal marketing efforts (eg. Twitter) will hopefully bring in additional users.

Also, if we could coordinate the changes that we plan to make with Rhino with this proposal, this would be ideal.

Other points:

  • although using 50% of our treasury is still on the high side for me to feel comfortable, the absolute $ amount is acceptable…afterall, we do need to risk some capital to help ensure this project gets off the ground.

  • the IL risk of these pools is NOT as large of a risk as i initially thought. It “appears” that pnda has stabilized around $0.0006. I could be very wrong on this.

  • having pnda governance in place would ensure that only people who have “skin in the game” can direct the future of this project…no longer depending on Bao holders to govern (who may have a differing agendas).

    • Do Rhino holders have voting power? If not, do you think they should (I do!)?

It is my belief that we only have 1 shot at turning pnda around and everything has to be focused on this “2nd launch” (listed on coingecko/marketcap, twitter marketing, Rhino reflective rewards imminent, synths/indexes).

Thanks again to cookies for getting this discussion out there.


Very much concord with your timing idea, being it calculable until synthetics.
I believe both Rhino and Bamboo had their own calculations for the governance snapshot, so they would have power.

1 Like

I’m in favor of the concept. My main concern is timing. Here’s an attempt for me to work through my logic:

The key reason for creating liquidity for the tokens on PancakeSwap is it creates incentives for traders due to the arbitrage opportunities? Essentially following the price movement of tokens on PandaSwap. Given that the price movements to date have been primarily a result of dilution, shouldn’t we wait for PNDA to have some utility? So wait to move forward sometime after the POLY launch?

Maybe it doesn’t matter and more liquidity earlier isn’t necessarily a bad thing?


Yeah I think having the pnda tokens on coingecko is great, but theres a lot of pressure to do it when we don’t have a product. If trading volume is going to come from adding this liquidty, who is going to be doing the trading? There’s already not a lot of trading of pnda, because theres not a reason to trade it. Personally I swap my pnda for rhino on a monthly basis, because it’s expensive to do otherwise. Are pnda-holders expected to just spend bnb/fees to cause a lot of trading volume to appear on the chart, just to cause CoinGecko to verify pnda? Unfortunately, I am unable to contribute to this effort in a meaningful way.

It’s like if we have one shot to do this, the timing of it is of utmost importance and it should be coordinated with a product release on bsc.

1 Like

Hey everyone I have updated the proposal to suggest adding liquidity to only the PNDA/BNB since PNDA will be the token we attempt to get listed first. If that is a success we can get RHINO and BAMBOO listed at a later date.

I would like to see what the general opinion of this proposal is so I have created a poll below.

Do you agree with this proposal?

  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

I think its wise to update the proposal to focus on pnda/bnb cake LP, to focus our resources and efforts instead of spreading them too widely.

1 Like

I’m in favor of focusing on just PNDA. Seems smart to focus on getting the one listed. That said, I’d really like to see timing coincide with some sort of synth launch. Seems like it could be a nice one-two punch from a marketing standpoint and I don’t feel a need to rush to deploy the funds since we don’t have too many shots at this.


I still think that the proposal as is is good approach, however I think once fixing and listing happens, we should already have a plan (commitment from the galaxy) to add soft synths as well as fixing it without launching new product afterwards is not going to succeed in the long run. Therefore it’s NO from me atm, until we can add the soft synth launch commitment to the proposal. (Even if it means 3 months after listing we deploy soft synths)


Agree on focusing on PNDA first on PancakeSwap.

I’m being ignorant but can I understand both Bamboo and Rhino are xSushi-like just that one is lesser risk/reward than the latter?