Good morning BIM exchange official and communication I greeted you all.
I am proposing the addition of a send and receive feature between users inside BIM Exchange.This feature is important because it improves how users move their assets within the platform.
Right now, many users may need to use external wallets or other platforms to transfer funds to another person. Allowing direct transfers inside BIM Exchange will make transactions more simple and more convenient.
Adding this feature can also increase user activity inside the ecosystem. When users can easily send or receive assets, they are more likely to keep their funds and interact more with BIM platforms.
this is also important because it supports easier financial interaction, faster asset movement, and a better overall experience.
I believe this feature will add value to the BIM exchange and strengthen user engagement in the BIM ecosystem.
Thank you @Gister for taking the time to submit this idea and for contributing to the discussion.
I understand the intention behind your proposal. Improving user convenience and making asset transfers easier is always a positive objective. However, from a strategic and architectural standpoint, this feature does not align with BIM Exchange’s core design principles.
BIM’s Core Model
BIM Exchange has always been designed as a fully decentralized DeFi platform.
We do not custody user funds.
We do not operate as a centralized wallet provider.
User liquidity remains in self-custody wallets.
When funds are staked through BIM, they are programmatically allocated across external protocols — not held internally.
Introducing an internal “send and receive” feature would imply either:
Building a custodial infrastructure, or
Developing a proprietary wallet layer
Both options conflict with our current architecture and philosophy.
Wallet Ecosystem Already Exists
Users today already rely on secure, audited wallets such as:
Rabby Wallet
Ledger
These solutions are:
Highly secure
Battle-tested
Industry-standard
Continuously audited
There is no strong competitive advantage for BIM to replicate this infrastructure.
Cost vs. Strategic Value
Developing and maintaining an internal transfer system or proprietary wallet would require:
Significant development resources
Ongoing security audits
Compliance considerations
Custodial risk management
For relatively limited added value, since users can already transfer assets instantly via their wallets.
From a capital allocation perspective, this would not currently be a priority development axis.
Conclusion
While the idea is appreciated and comes from a good intention to improve usability, it does not align with BIM’s decentralized infrastructure model.
At this stage, there are no plans to develop a native wallet or internal send/receive functionality.
Thank you again for contributing to governance discussions — community participation is always encouraged.
