I've been thinking about why small communities or families might choose to create their own representative token for an already established cryptocurrency.
Take, for example, the idea of creating a 1:1 token for Dogecoin, called NuDOGE (which doesn't exist), on the Hive second-layer chain with a dedicated liquidity pool. At first glance, it may seem redundant—but when viewed through the lens of decentralization, the idea starts to make more sense. Within a tight-knit community, people might place more trust or value in a localized or purpose-driven version of a token than in a generic, widely traded one. On Hive, there's already a representative token called "SWAP.DOGE", which essentially functions as a bridge. But a token like NuDOGE could serve not just as a swap asset—it could reflect a deeper level of community transparency and engagement. It might also allow for quicker and more seamless transfers when converting back to real DOGE.
Beyond that, this kind of token could carry unique functionality within its ecosystem. For instance, NuDOGE could be used to purchase NFTs, participate in community DAOs, or gain access to gated content or services. This added utility would make it more than just a mirror asset—it would become a tool. Of course, implementing these features would depend heavily on developers, especially if they're also managing their own decentralized or centralized exchanges.
Another possible advantage of having a community-managed representative token is resilience. If major swap tokens like SWAP.DOGE ever failed—due to technical issues, loss of support, or malicious intent—holders of NuDOGE might retain access to liquidity or community-specific recovery options. In this way, NuDOGE could act as a kind of safety net, insulating its users from the risks of relying solely on third-party bridge tokens. Think of SWAP.EOS on Hive's second-layer chain that was removed a long while back.
That said, the risks remain very real. Rug pulls and exit scams can happen in small projects just as easily as in large ones. Transparency, developer accountability, and robust tokenomics would be essential. Still, the concept is compelling enough that I plan to spend more time exploring its implications and possibilities.