RIP-000-010: Token whitelisting process

Name: Token whitelisting process
Category: Governance, protocol
Status: Final - Accepted
Scope: To establish a token whitelisting process governed by the Ren community


As discussed in the corresponding RFC (, governance is needed to manage which tokens get supported by RenVM, and to prioritize which assets get integrated first. This is necessary as each token considered for support needs to be vetted on the contract level for safe integration, integrated on a code-level into RenVM, and supported on front-ends like RenBridge and the Command Center.

This proposal lays out a process where the Ren community governs token whitelisting.


For background, please refer to the corresponding RFC:


The process is as follows:

  1. Any person wishing to get a token considered for integration, fills in this form:
    The person could be a representative of a project, or a Ren community member, or anyone else. A submission will automatically be posted on the Ren forum (with some spam filtering in place). Submissions could also directly be done on the forum - the TypeForm is for the convenience of the person submitting the proposal, and for making sure necessary information about the token is included in the proposal. Proposals with missing information about the token will be put on hold until the proposer adds the missing information, or someone else makes a new submission with all the needed information.

  2. A token that passes the base restrictions* will be added to the proposal pool, which is the set of tokens that currently are under consideration to be integrated with RenVM.

  3. Roughly once per month (unless there is some new feature rollout which pauses listings temporarily), there will be a Snapshot governance vote, where DNOs vote on the tokens they think should be integrated with RenVM. The top X tokens would then be added that proceeding month (X is a placeholder until it becomes clear how many tokens on average can be added per month).


  • Rebase tokens are not supported by RenVM currently (rebase tokens that are wrapped in a stable ERC-20 format are supported though).
  • Non-standard tokens deviating from the regular safe ERC-20 format, for instance using built-in transfer burn functions, might not be supported.
  • Tokens or digital assets that could be considered securities.

Managing the proposal pool

Tokens that partake in the voting rounds, and don’t receive more than 0.5% of the total voting for 3 separate voting rounds, will be removed from the proposal pool. They can be resubmitted again to the proposal pool, but only by a known Ren community member that can vouch for the proposal.

If the proposal pool gets unwieldy large, such that for instance Snapshot cannot handle so many options in a single vote, inclusion in the vote will be roughly prioritized based on the marketcap ranking and the perceived demand of the Ren community.

Delisting criteria

There are no delisting criteria regarding if a token should stop being supported by RenVM, at this moment. If such criteria are needed, that will need to be proposed at a later stage.

Listing fees

There are no mandatory listing fees, but projects are free to commit liquidity mining incentives or payments to the Community Ecosystem Fund, to increase the chances that the community will vote for that token.

Next steps

  1. Vote here: :arrow_right: Snapshot :arrow_left:
  2. If accepted, update the governance process

Great RIP Max, really looking forward to the development of the token listing process. Builds from Bancor Token whitelisting process should be taken, as this is quite a robust process and generates quite a lot of hype from token holder communities.

Also of late, I’ve participates in Tokemak reactors, which has been interesting and has created a lot of positive attention. Not sure how hard of system this would be to implement, but definitely worth looking into!


This sounds like a well thought out and implementation for incorporating new tokens into the ecosystem.

I’m glad the voting will be monthly too, it’ll encourage more DNOs to get engaged with voting on all things ren-related.

I’m very much looking forward to seeing this develop :+1:

1 Like

Sound proposal. In support of the process.

I’ve been thinking the same thing @Zeta_Tauri .

Tokemak leveraged the reactor selection process well as a marketing tool.

We could learn from their approach and perhaps incorporate some aspects from it. Details on Tokemak’s process can be reviewed here: Voting for the FIrst Token Reactors

Great to see how the community feedback on the RFC evolved in to the RIP.

This got my vote :white_check_mark:

The vote is live now until October 16th. DNOs, please vote! :ballot_box:

1 Like

Thanks, Max - great RIP (as ever). I’ve voted in favour.

The results of the votes:

(Link: Snapshot)

Thank you everyone for voting! Even if you are in support of a proposal and are seeing a proposal have majority support already, it’s great data for us getting everyone’s votes in, as it will help us in the future in case we want to implement quorum thresholds and other governance features like that!