# Summary

This proposal is specific to fixing an xcToken contract issue with a [previously passed governance vote](https://forum.moonbeam.network/t/proposal-2-register-bifrost-liquid-staking-tokens-lsts-xcvdot-xcvglmr-xcfil-and-xcvfil-on-moonbeam/920).  And replacing proposal [#21](https://apps.moonbeam.network/moonbeam/referendum/21) in General Admin Track for accelerating and proposal [#23](https://apps.moonbeam.network/moonbeam/referendum/23) in Whitelisted Track with adding xcvDOT as XCM fee asset by supporting with Purestake team. 


**We are seeking assistance from the technical committee to whitelist the pre-image so that the whitelist track can be used to accelerate this proposal.*

Given the length of governance and enactment process as well of that of the much anticipated DOT unlock in the broader ecosystem, we would be missing a key opportunity to which we have worked towards internally and with the Purestake team and Moonbeam ecosystem partners to which we simply cannot miss out on. More specifically, we have planned a series of DEX incentive campaigns,  have obtained a GLMR incentives grant and are part of the Ignite campaign in order to drive DOT liquidity to the Moonbeam ecosystem and build use-cases on native Moonbeam protocols with our liquid staking assets.

This proposal aims to fix by changing the `sufficient` value of the registered **xcvDOT, xcvGLMR, xcFIL, and xcvFIL** from `false` to `true`.

# Issue Statement

Recently, we have discovered that xcvToken , Bifrost liquid staking tokens "vTokens", cannot create trading pairs when integrating with Native Moonbeam and Moonriver DEXs such as Stellaswap, Beamswap, and Solarbeam. The reason is that when xcvToken is registered, the `sufficient` parameter is set to false, which prevents any address from receiving xcvToken without having the native token GLMR. As a result, the contract for creating trading pairs fails.

Failed TXes for example:

On Beamswap
V2: https://moonscan.io/tx/0xf2afc1c170bd70fc6bce7a3b6f8188eb3bc9c22ebf37e9dfaba47a8667329136

V2: https://moonscan.io/tx/0x97ca37b9b6bd13f1ce0347fc420500d0c4a47b26dfa2cbd80d3d8e81af3c01b5

V3: https://moonscan.io/tx/0x3de1e740eb3e8def53defcc21b6b9f5bf21682b768c097ca6744b3bf1ea6fdca

On Solarbeam:

https://moonriver.moonscan.io/tx/0x100a076e860487900e7b2e6f6bd47d66ba961a883f47376cc80f47aaf128b554

As the Moonbeam team reported: “If an asset is `sufficient` it means that it can be sent to an account that has no balance of a native token. If an asset is not sufficient, it can't be sent to an account that has no balance of the native token.”

Although sending GLMR to a DEX pool contract in advance to avoid `sufficient` issue can be solution, but pool contract needs to have a payable function to accept GLMR, which unfortunately most DEXes pool contracts doesn't have.

So, we would need to change `sufficient` from `false` to `true` to ensure that any address can still receive xcvDOT, xcvGLMR, xcFIL, and xcvFIL without GLMR.

- This proposal is about fixing a problem with a contract called xcToken.
- The problem is that the xcToken cannot create trading pairs with other tokens.
- The proposal wants to change a value in the xcToken contract to fix the problem.
- This change will allow any address to receive xcToken without needing another token called GLMR.
- The proposal is important because it will help drive liquidity and build use-cases in the Moonbeam ecosystem.

#25 Emergency Fixing xcvDOT, xcvGLMR, xcFIL, and xcvFIL Asset sufficient to “true” (Seeking for whitelisted fast track)