The problem Burve Protocol solves

1. Complex onboarding
   Launching a token often requires deep technical & financial know hows in smart contracts, liquidity pools, and price and market cap. Token launch on Burve Protocol is streamlined for minimum effort with LOL mode -- best for memecoin, and HODL mode -- best for project & community.
2. Token trading liquidity
   Many launched tokens soon lack liquidity, causing unmatched buy/sell orders (typical in order book AMMs) or unilateral liquidity shortages (typical in LP AMMs where LP pairs are required). Burve uses bonding curve contracts for transactions, so buy/sell orders can be fulfilled at anytime. In LOL & HODL launch modes, users don’t need to create liquidity pools or provide upfront capital, as all purchased tokens have corresponding anchor tokens locked in the contract, preventing liquidity shortages.
3. Potential rug pull & liquidity risks
   In LP-based tokens, token issuers may have super admin access which can lead to rug pulls or liquidity pool withdrawals. Tokens on Burve are issued through the bonding curve and the supply is regulated solely through multi-audited bonding curve contract, no external token supply. This keeps anyone from rug-pulling or withdrawing the liquidity pool.
4. Flawed incentives in Memecoin launches
   Current memecoin launch incentives unsustainable, relying on insider trading or “buy low, sell high” strategies, causing constant fear of sell-offs by larger traders. Yet successful launchers on Burve that reach a $33K market cap can receive an instant 1000 USDT reward from Burve Treasury, referers can get 500 USDT, and early participants can enjoy up to 9x price increase. All participants not only have skin in the game but also will be rewarded for participation.
5. Lack of discoverability
   Users often miss new token launches due to limited discoverability methods like site checks or official announcements. Burve solves this by integrating with Telegram to send instant notifications and automatically creates a chat group

Challenges we ran into

1. Algorithmic Complexity:
   a. The complex calculation logic required precise mathematical operations, which were error-prone and hard to maintain.
   b. We enlisted professional mathematicians to ensure accuracy and rigor in smart contract calculations. Their expertise helped us develop and verify reliable algorithms
2. Business Logic Complexity
   a. Implementing the complex business logic made smart contracts difficult to develop and maintain.
   b. We adopted a modular design, breaking down the logic into manageable modules. Each module was developed, tested, and deployed independently, simplifying the overall process.
3. Precision Loss in Bonding Curve Simulation
   a. During the simulation of the bonding curve, precision loss can occur, affecting the accuracy of the calculation results.
   b. We introduced a tolerance mechanism and used high-precision algorithms and data types at key points to minimize precision loss.
4. Compatibility with Multiple Token and Curve Types
   a. Supporting various token and curve types increased protocol complexity, leading to compatibility issues.
   b. We conducted thorough compatibility testing and adjustments for each type, aiming to unify them under a single protocol framework to simplify maintenance.
5. Performance Issues from High Data Request Volume
   a. High data request volumes led to system performance degradation, impacting user experience.
   b. We used tools like browser developer tools and Eruda to identify performance bottlenecks. By optimizing request frequency and volume, implementing caching, and using asynchronous processing, we improved system response speed and stability.

By addressing these challenges through professional collaboration, modular design, high-precision algorithms, compatibility optimization, performance tuning, and customized solutions, we ensured our system's reliability, stability, and scalability.