ECO tokens are designed to be spent, sent, and redeemed by their users, it is a consumer token however it launched on the Ethereum blockchain and the gas fees are high and not the best for a consumer token as fees can go as high as $15 for sending between wallets and for regular web2 or merchant to use ECO/ECOx as a preferred token, they will need to not worry about paying fees in ETH. This is a serious bottleneck to achieving or creating a real economy.
Since ECO and ECOx contracts are upgradeable I would like to propose the implementation that would allow the contract to inherit GSNRecipient Which will allow holders of both ECO and ECOx to send tokens without needing to pay a fee in ETH gas, rather it would be priced in ECO and ECOx making it a one token
I don’t see downsides to implementing this, except for some difficulty in setting it up but that would be on the infrastructure side, not really an end-user issue or friction. From an end-user perspective, it’s all benefits.
How it would work:
Users sign a message to transact ECO, ECOx, or sECOx;
All transaction fees would be paid in ECO even if they don’t have ETH in their wallet;
When the transaction is completed ECO can be converted to ETH and restituted to the relayer so the next user uses it.
Some benefits:
Simpler than using an L2 because users don’t need to bridge tokens, or send them to CEXs to withdraw in another chain (a trick often used) which will cost them even more fees—network fee and CEX withdraw fee.
Less waiting time and prevent unfortunate outcomes such as CEX or DEX issues (hacks, wrong network, locked funds, off-chain bureaucracy, and more);
Avoid hostile swings in price in case a user is swapping/bridging and the market falls 50% while they’re waiting;
Brings $ECO closer to a coin approach, giving yet another purpose and utility.
I think this is a great idea! Would allow the end user to frictionlessly transact with $ECO (or $ECOx) without having to purchase (or convert) ETH to cover gas fees.
Side note: I think we should still keep L2 conversations going because I believe most transaction will occur on L2 solutions in future. I realize there isn’t many user friendly L2 products out there, but over time I believe they will become more available/widely adopted.
I totally agree and since optimism and arbitrum are supported on GSN, Regardless it would make sense to do this on both L1 and L2, we should remember these L2 have their shortcoming eg optimism can take up to 7 days to withdraw funds and bridges are not always user-friendly.
Optimism and Arbitrum are cheap but will require a 7 days period to withdraw funds into Ethereum.
Polygon Hermez has two bridges, POS taking ~45min to 3 hours and Plasma which takes 7 days, a wrapped token for ECO and ECOx would probably use POS bridge.
The fee on Polygon varies and can be extremely high in a bull market.
I would think having the GSN for both L1 and L2 as discussed in the discord is the best as it gives people options.
The best option for L2 in my own opinion would be Polygon Hermez/ Polygon zkEVM
I personally prefer ZK-rollups not only because of the better security but also the faster finality when compared to Optimistic. So, I tend to agree with @flarcos that Polygon zkEVM may be the most suitable option for now.
While most zero-knowledge EVMs are still under production, some in alpha and others in beta, I wonder what are your views and opinions about these options:
zkPorter puts data availability offchain rather than on Ethereum enabling up to 20,000 TPS, and as a result, ultra-low transaction fees comparable with sidechains. The data remains available using a proof-of-stake (PoS) mechanism where stakers are zkSync token holders. https://blog.matter-labs.io/zkporter-a-breakthrough-in-l2-scaling-ed5e48842fbf
StarkNet is not EVM-compatible but can compile Solidity source code to custom ZK-friendly bytecode. https://starkware.co/starknet/
Scroll zkEVM is a new zero-knowledge EVM implementation under development which designs zero-knowledge circuits for each EVM opcode allowing to deploy Ethereum-native smart contracts EVM on Scroll without needing to modify the underlying EVM bytecode. https://scroll.io/blog/zkEVM
There are many alternatives, i would think popular and well-supported L2 would be the focus, at least Arbitrium, Polygon Hermez and Optimism support major swap and dex services.
I’m totally in! In fact it took me some 10 days more to come up with the same idea
As @Saulo mentioned zk-rollups more favourable in terms of security and finality speed. But I’m totally OK with both Optimism and Arbitrum.
In short, thank you everyone here for elaborating on this crucial subject. Will support
I completely agree that optimistic solutions are just a temporary answer to the scaling, while zk tech will dominate in the future. As far as I know the main problem with zk is that they are not exactly production ready yet, but 2023 might change that. It would be great if ECO can move to the future-proof stack from the start. If we can find good EVM-compatible (which is a must, in my opinion) zk solution and combine it with GSN, we can solve the main pressing issue of tokens mobility. As I mentioned before, ECO transfers should be extremely cheap or completely free at the adoption phase.
why not use all l2 solutions for this solution, where the commission will be much less than in the main network.Proposal to deploy a smart contract on optimism and on arbitrum/
In general, everything was clearly explained and the emoticons finally worked for me.
