[Referendum: 36] Proposal to Register Asset xcPINK


This proposal is to Register xcPINK as an XC-20


We propose to register Polkadot Asset Hub PINK token as xcPINK, with the following details:

  • Multilocation: { “parents”: 1, “interior”: {“X3”: [ { “Parachain”: 1000 }, {“PalletInstance”: 50}, { “GeneralIndex”: 23 }]}}
  • Decimals: 10
  • Name: PINK
  • Symbol: xcPINK

xcPINK will have the following asset ID and XC-20 address:

  • Asset ID: 64174511183114006009298114091987195453
  • XC-20 address: 0xfFfFFfFf30478fAFBE935e466da114E14fB3563d

On-Chain Proposal Reference

On-Chain Referenda #36 with the associated hash: 0x836d08e9f5c204853de0ea033e552b00dece3ef8ffcea2d89023f37899090ee4

Technical details:

This proposal just registers PINK as xcPINK, as HRMP channels were already stablished.

PINK aims to be an XC-20 meme coin on Moonbeam. they have already launched their pretty addictive game, DotIsPink, which is already playable, and I see a lot of excitement around the Polkadot Ecosystem

It should be a grand experiment generating a lot of excitement in the Moonbeam community. also, it is remarkable that, to my belief, it is the first Cross-Chain meme coin in the Polkadot Ecosystem

If you are interested, the hex-encoded call data for this proposal in Moonbeam is:



lol why not, lets bring it on…all the meme coins!


Thanks @turrizt for the proposal!

From a technical perspective, this proposal looks OK - I’ve tested it via Chopsticks and it executes well.

AssetID and XC-20 Address are OK as well.

As PINK is not being registered as an XCM Fee Asset (no price feed as reference) users will have to use either USDT or USDC from AssetHub to send tokens.


Unless there is an immediate and clear risk to the chain or the users of it, approving assets shouldn’t be based on personal opinions on whether they are useful or not, or opinions on if the purpose is justified. Therefore, i think this should be approved.