# Decentralized Futures Programs: Magport Labs, Advancing Technology Development and Promotion within the Polkadot Ecosystem

**URL:** <https://forum.polkadot.network/t/decentralized-futures-programs-magport-labs-advancing-technology-development-and-promotion-within-the-polkadot-ecosystem/4957>\
**Category:** Ecosystem\
**Tags:** decentralized-future\
**Created:** [November 28, 2023, 9:28am UTC](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/decentralized-futures-programs-magport-labs-advancing-technology-development-and-promotion-within-the-polkadot-ecosystem/4957 "2023-11-28T09:28:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 15

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![hangfo](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.polkadot.network/hangfo/32/3265_2.png) [@hangfo](https://forum.polkadot.network/u/hangfo)\
**Post date:** [November 30, 2023, 4:01am UTC](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/decentralized-futures-programs-magport-labs-advancing-technology-development-and-promotion-within-the-polkadot-ecosystem/4957/15 "2023-11-30T04:01:59Z")

</div>

> [@joepetrowski](#):
>
> For _system parachains_, Parity is mostly focused on deploying Agile Coretime, implementing RFC-32, deploying Polkadot\<\>{Kusama, Ethereum} bridges, and some upgrades to Asset Hub (namely, what was detailed in the roadmap I shared last year). W/r/t this work, I do think “common good parachains” was a terrible term, we should have used “system parachains” from the beginning. Trying to undo that :).
> 
> Coretime, as @Acai has correctly identified, completely changes the economics/access model to Polkadot resources. Anyone can make a parachain with DOT as the native token on that chain, and only buy Coretime when they want to execute a block (likely either (a) when they have enough DOT fees to buy the Coretime, or (b) using some DOT subsidy they have raised, perhaps from the Treasury). The added benefit is that they need not be a system parachain, and can just use reserve-backed DOT. I think the Magnet work is on the right track.
> 
> Perhaps projects like this are the correct application of the “common good” term. They can use transaction fees or Treasury funding to get DOT with which to buy Coretime, but they have complete design flexibility by being outside the formal system (and thus not having to use Polkadot Root origin for governance (although of course, they could)).

@joepetrowski Thank you for the clarification of _system parachain_ and _common goods parachain_, quite straightforward. Since “common good chain” is an outdated term for system parachain here, I am afraid that not every Polkadot developer or community member is able to tell the difference between the system parchain and common good ones, especially when it comes to some protocols and utility apps. I think a clearer delineation and guidance would be helpful for projects to develop appchains or something common good based on Parity’s technology; maybe @Acai can also help.  
I know there have been some discussions about [polkadot protocol and common good parachains](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/polkadot-protocol-and-common-good-parachains/866) before, but I would also like to get an update on your views.

> [@joepetrowski](#):
>
> I don’t really understand what you mean here. Can you explain more? We live in a multi-chain world, applications have to deal with that. Asset Hub can definitely help, especially when it comes to routing and use as a reserve location.

For the second question, I think @Acai has given some clues above, such as liquidity dashboards and tools on the front end or asset aggregation on the back end. If you check out other chains, Polygon has Quickswap and Cosmos has Osmosis, although there are dozens of IBC chains like parachains. All of these alternative chains have at least one native asset dapp to aggregate and exchange their native chain assets. But we can’t find a dominant dapp in the Polkadot system because there are too many dapps in each parachain with overdispersed TVLs.

Back to my question, multiple chains are bound to exist, but economic utility is also something we should consider. Over-diversification of assets leads to potential liquidity and security issues and a poor user experience. What’s your opinion on this? Do you prefer Parity to upgrade the existing Asset Hub to further enhance liquidity, or is it something like a new common good aggregator app from the Magnet or other teams?

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/decentralized-futures-programs-magport-labs-advancing-technology-development-and-promotion-within-the-polkadot-ecosystem/4957)._