[DBIP] <i am Proposing a New category “trading platforms”>

[harunsulaiman]

Proposal type

Add category (table)

Affected scope (files/folders/chains)

TradingPlatforms

Motivation / problem statement

I would like to propose adding a "Trading Platforms" category to the database. Developers and users frequently need to evaluate where crypto assets are traded, comparing DEXs, CEXs, and Aggregators across different networks.

I propose the following data columns for the new category CSV:

• ⁠offer⁠: The canonical reference slug (e.g., ⁠!offer:uniswap-v3⁠)
• platformType⁠: DEX, CEX, or Aggregator.
• tradingTypes⁠: Spot, Margin, Perpetuals, etc.
• kycRequired⁠: Boolean (Yes/No) indicating if KYC is mandatory.
• ⁠feeStructure⁠: Brief text describing the fee model.

Let me know if this schema looks good or if you would like to adjust the proposed columns before I open a Pull Request

Detailed proposal

I propose the following data columns for the new category CSV:

• ⁠offer⁠: The canonical reference slug (e.g., ⁠!offer:uniswap-v3⁠)
• platformType⁠: DEX, CEX, or Aggregator.
• tradingTypes⁠: Spot, Margin, Perpetuals, etc.
• kycRequired⁠: Boolean (Yes/No) indicating if KYC is mandatory.
• ⁠feeStructure⁠: Brief text describing the fee model.

Let me know if this schema looks good or if you would like to adjust the proposed columns before I open a Pull Request

Contact (optional)

No response

Rewards address (optional)

No response

[dacdoyx]

Submitted PR #1897 adding the trading platforms category with Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, Bybit, OKX, KuCoin, and Gate.io.

[eugene17kotov]

@dacdoyx Thanks for the proposal. From our perspective, the general idea makes sense, as we currently have wallets and ramps but do not have a dedicated category for exchanges or trading venues.

This would cover a distinct use case compared to payments, ramps, wallets, and bridges. The focus here is on where users can trade, swap, or exchange crypto assets, including CEXs, DEXs, DEX aggregators, and potentially perpetuals venues.

That said, we would suggest avoiding the name TradingPlatforms, since platforms already has a specific meaning in our database. A clearer category name would likely be exchanges or trading.

The proposed schema is a useful starting point, but it likely requires further refinement before implementation.
Overall, we support the idea of adding this category and would consider it for implementation in the near future.

[harunsulaiman]

@eugene17kotov thank you for your feedback.
I will be waiting for more on this.

This DBIP proposal idea is created by me.

[eugene17kotov]

@harunsulaiman sorry for the confusion, I should have addressed this to you directly.

Thank you for the proposal. The general idea makes sense to us, and we appreciate you bringing it up. As mentioned above, we think a dedicated category for exchanges or trading venues could be useful, but the category name and schema likely need some additional refinement before implementation.

We will keep this in mind and consider it when planning future category updates.