Need your input: app improvement options

Hey, looking forward to seeing it! Many of our members here are already in the process of building out the incognito ecosystem, including web wallets and dexes.

You can post ideas and brainstorm in the community/ideas category:
https://we.incognito.org/c/community/ideas

and if you have or are starting a build, post it in the core-dev/building category:

https://we.incognito.org/c/core-dev/building

2 Likes

Thank you. I am very stoked for this project. I believe privacy, decentralization, and permissionlessness are the essence of crypto and without those three they are nothing. Incognito allowed me to feel more comfortable getting a coinbase account knowing I can fling it all into a black box.

7 Likes

Forgot to ask, could we have a night mode? Just invert the white and the black? I do a lot of tinkering in bed and my phone gets veeery bright

5 Likes

It should be combined. Outbound could show a little text or in shielding animation or icon if it recognizes an outbound address with a little note for beginners "we see you are sending to an address off incognito, remember, outbound address cannot be shielded

-and then have it for every crypto except monero where it says “we see you are a clever fox and understand privacy, your Monero is leaving our network, have a great and private day!”

2 Likes


It’s very cool when the asks our opinion! :hugs:

3 Likes

I just posted. I did not know which one so its in ideas for now. Admin’s can move the thread if there’s a better home.
New Concept Design

1 Like

Can I have the ability to rename accounts in the app?
Can I have the ability to reorder accounts in the app?

6 Likes

(┛ಠ_ಠ)┛彡┻━┻

yes

3 Likes

┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ)

sorry

5 Likes

I voted for the merge of shield, but I do like it the way it is. Maybe when you first install incognito have it show a one time pop up image showing what shield and unshield is or does. I really like the app the way it is now and I think YouTube videos are a good way to market and explain how to use it. I also like the idea of needing a logo…

1 Like

hey, so we’ll be merging unshield and send as that seems to be the general consensus. fingers crossed that will be more intuitive for new users. thanks for voting!

happy to hear you like the app - we’ll be releasing quick walkthroughs in-app at some point, and about more detailed youtube explainers… @elena is your gal!

if you have any ideas about video content you’d like to see (or think others might like to see), please let us know.

6 Likes

1- AUTO - Retry for BTC Deposits:
As Bitcoin is the most popular and used asset in the world it would be the most SHIELDED also i guess. The problem of BTC on period of high congestion is that 1 HOUR shielding time is not enough. This problem will put a NEW USER IN PANIC because i can t receive his BTC on time and the address will expire. That panic will bring the user to reach the team via telegram,discord etc and make many question only for a simple problem, that PANIC could make the users feel scammed when is not the case.
2- IF INCOGNITO want to become a popular DEX we should make something to avoid the UNISWAP problem (listing of SCAMCOINS) so i think the users who want to trade own minted coins with no market value should use maybe another DEX separated from the other one. And maybe we could potentially adopt a system for the new token to be added with locked liquidity , so in some pools we could avoid exit scams.
3- NIGHT MODE OFFCOURSE

2 Likes

i have very important argument to discuss, that is the rising amount of SCAM token listed on uniswap for example. Many people got rekt with exit -scam and personally i don t like this for the crypto community.
I think that a very important thing that we could achieve with pDEX is to find a way to solve this problem.
Actually i 'm a bit against the possibility to mint own token because many users will try to make copy of existing token to scam other people.
The crypto community is very nice but can be very bad if we give the opportunity.
i think we should open a discussion on that because if really people in ther future want to use a real DEX like incognito, that is cross chain, cheap and fast, we have to provide them more security against scammers.
Some other projects are working in that direction already (LiquidityDividendProtocol,UniCrypt?,TrustSwap…)
tell me what you guys think about it

1 Like

The possibility for any project to create their own coin and be able to reward and redeem those coins privately is a great feature of the Incognito project. It helps the other projects, it brings in new users, and brings the Incognito project to groups of people we may never reach in other ways.

Wherever money is involved, people will try to scam others out of their coins, unfortunately. People need to be careful what they buy/trade. For now our advice is to not use/buy/trade unverified coins unless you are familiar with the project they belong to. Verified coins have a green checkmark.

Maybe a popup? “You are about to buy an unverified coin”

1 Like

no i am not buying any unverified coin but maybe there should be a mark or something on those unverified because in the long run gonna be full of thousand of those token over there if we go mainstream i mean and after is not so nice anymore to have so many. i don t have any solution in the hands but i just told this because we can do better , more transparent than other dex already existing .
trying to solve the scammers problem could be a nice thing and creating similar unmarked tokens can be confusing. i don t have this problem but new crypto users could. just a point i could be wrong and trading mistakes will never happens .
anyway the idea of minting tokens is for sure nice.

1 Like

I would really like the option to just hide all unverified coins, maybe even a checkbox or something. I think that should be the default. If you are searching for a specific coin, and there are 3 versions of BTC or DAI, and I have the “only verified tokens”, then only the one with green checkmark shows up…

If I search for a token that is new/custom, such as MyNewTokenXYZ… and there is only 1, then show it, or give me an indicator that more coins are found, but are not verified… To me this gives people incentive to get their coins verified and make sure they are not just a scam coin trying to copy another project/coin… But it is sort of a pain searching through all of them to get the right one, and it is not automatically apparent to a new user that a coin without a check mark is unverified, as we have seen on Telegram new users ask why some coins do not have the proper icon being shown, and asking if that is just something that has not been implemented yet… when the real answer is, those are scam coins… How many people have a scam coin in their wallet, but think they bought the real thing? How many never came to ask questions?

I know there is a sense of “In crypto you always need to be careful”, but if you want to get mass adoption, some of these things need to have a little bit easier on ramp to make sure peoples first interaction with Incognito is not something that gets them scammed.

13 Likes

thank you for your thoughtful post, @doc. something like this?

the option to show unverified coins will be toggled off by default. if a user searches for a ticker that only pulls up an unverified coin, then the option will be switched on to note that it is unverified.

5 Likes

Thanks for the mock-up. This is definitively a better approach than the actual one. But I believe it should have even more safety, because when a user searches for a token which is not verified they might not recognize when the check box gets clicked automatically.

Maybe we can give not verified tokens also a symbol like a red x instead of the green check mark? And then we could write show unverified coins and behind the text show the red x as well. Thus we have a color which really grabs the attention and screams be careful.

Problem in general it makes trading looking somehow dangerous and complicated for normal users. Due to this I belive it might be the best option to hide unverified tokens at all to keep the user interface clean and simple. If someone wants to buy unverified tokens we could create a check box within the app settings. Most of the average people never want to buy an unverified token thus let’s make it as easy and safe as possible for these people.

1 Like

thanks. while i definitely see where you’re coming from, there are instances whereby coins are legitimate, but simply have not yet been verified. as @doc said - we want to encourage these people to go through the process of verifying their tokens. a warning icon communicates that they are ‘cancelled’ from the getgo, and moving the toggle into Settings complicates matters in some cases:

in addition to incognito native coins, lesser-known coins from other chains are also not automatically verified. the process is partly manual at this point, and depends on a number of factors. for example, some newer external projects have added their own coins to the pDEX, and after raising awareness in their own community, supplied significant liquidity, after which the verified tick was given. among other things, the pDEX aims to give all legitimate projects a fair chance at visibility and adoption, without the same predatory listing fees charged by other exchanges. we believe that this an important problem to solve.

I do feel like we need to strike a balance between making major coins more visible, and not immediately penalizing newer projects. this list also appears in a few different cases - trade yes, but also shield, and add a coin. not many users will want to buy an unverified coin maybe, but some users want to port a more unknown token into the network, and some would want to add incognito native tokens created by the community to their list, etc.

incognito aims to be inclusive and interoperable, but as you say, also intuitive and safe to use. To do that we’ll need to find a way to balance both viewpoints and interests. we don’t claim to have all the answers just yet, but i hope this message helps to clarify some rationales.

thanks again for your input, we’ll definitely keep it in mind going forward.

7 Likes

Along with the suggested changes above, it might serve better to actually charge a fee for generating a token. It would help but not entirely prevent users from generating a bunch of tokens for no reason other than its free to do so. A serious user / project with a genuine need won’t mind spending a 5 to 20 prv to make their token and it would entice true ownership. It would serve as a deterrent for people generating useless coins as well give reason for wanting to legitimize / verify their coin. I’m sure this is just one side of this non verified I’m addressing but other coins which are actual etherscan, coingecko, exchange or some sort list coin should become verified when added by the user either through forum request to developers or checked against etherscan.io as an actual token.

3 Likes