ERC-20 Transition


#21

Never gonna happen, regardless of benefits. Close thread and move on.


#22

Yeah I am not a fan of a migration.
Contact everyone only to go through the same process later for safecoin.

Tether is >1bn on Omni
Never had a Pb with Omni.

It’s going to be a logistics nightmare for me to migrate my clients.

And it will divert focus off dev effort.
The forum will be full of migration threads.

I don’t know. I am not a huge fan of that idea.


#23

I’m not a fan either, particularly for any impact on MaidSafe.

Regarding the other issues though perhaps there’s a way to mitigate…

  1. A new coin EMAID is issued on ERC20 up to the maximum amount of MAID in circulation
  2. There’s a way to exchange from MAID to EMAID by sending MAID to a burn address where an ERC20 address is specified and receives EMAID 1 for 1
  3. Later there’s dual process for MAID to SafeCoin alongside EMAID to SafeCoin

This creates two coins that will ultimately have the same value, though there may be supply demand differences leading up to SafeCoin launch, these will be reduced by their ultimate conversion to equal value of SafeCoin.

  • Those who have MAID don’t have to do anything.
  • Those who have MAID but want to take advantage of easier trading, hardware wallets etc can burn MAID for EMAID.

So, no need for eveybody to do anything, in fact only those who want EMAID need do anything, and both coins should be tradable at similar values, though we might expect greater volume and a migration towards EMAID over time.

Perhaps MAID will become de-listed on exchanges as volume falls, so trading prior to SafeCoin launch might require conversion to EMAID after some time, or at least be harder or at a discount the longer you hold onto MAID.

But still, not something I’m in favour of.


#24

I see the benefits of the idea, but I guess whether to do it would depend a good deal on;

  1. would there be a negative impact on perception (e.g. would coinmarketcap.com include the two tokens as one item for giving market cap figures etc, would exchanges list both, would any confusion be formed?)
  2. would it be any significant work for MaidSafe?

If it wouldn’t be much work, and wouldn’t cause any negative confusion, then I’d say it’s worth it for the benefits.


#25

I don’t think anyone suggests making MAID obsolete, just giving a better option for those who want to use hardware wallets & send MAID between wallets without crazy fees & delays.

Nobody would need to migrate if they don’t want to, nor would MaidSafe need to worry about contacting everyone. The word would spread among those who actively send & receive MAID who would benefit from the new tokens.

If it would distract the devs or find it hard to get listed on exchanges it may not be worthwhile.


#26

Agree 100%. It is what it is. Focus on moving forward. It was always going to be a holding token and that’s what it is. Absolutely a waste of time and energy.


#27

I am confused as to how this would reduce transaction costs. It seems to me that we either need to pay the fees now (which will hopefully come down in the future) to transfer to an ERC-20- based token or we pay them later to exchange our tokens for SAFE. Where are the savings?


#28

The problem /additional cost comes with e.g. The community engagement program - if one wants to send coin there and help developing awesome stuff the (bitcoin) transaction fees have to be paid each time…

And when buying on an exchange now… Having to pay enormous money to get it off the exchange makes people leaving their coin on the exchange just because it would be too expensive to extract them…


#29

Inherent to your argument is the assumption that in a world where MAID remains an OMNI token, the only time a person would move their coins is to exchange them for Safecoin, which is unlikely to be the case, I think (exorbitant fees outstanding). Decreasing the transaction cost would likely be an excellent way to boost liquidity.


#30

It seems there could be a way to bypass sending the maid to a burning adress when converting to safecoin if fees become a real stopper :
:I Have problem transferring my maidsafecoin from hitbtc to poloniex

also read my questions about how it would work a few posts later in the same thread.

Sounds a bit of extra work, but it seems it would indeed work. ( tldr : at maid/safecoin conversion day, maid are frozen at current btc block number ( so no double spend possible outside, no other usage possible than converting ). Then you sign a message containing your Safe wallet ID with your maid private key, and send it to Maidsafe, who credits the Safecoin wallet accordingly. )

Given this possibility, I don’t think we should worry too much. Imho better to not make unnecessary waves, and let the team focus on developing the core network.

EDIT : indeed this doesn’t adress the issue that nobody wants to use their maid for small CEP donations due to fees being higher than the amount sent… Then again, imho, core development is the priority.


#31

It is prohibitively expensive to move Maidsafecoin around, but I’m not sure whether it is worth the switch to ERC20 at this stage only to switch to Safecoin potentially shortly after.


#32

I’m looking to invest but I must admit that the current situation has made things difficult so far. If it was an ERC-20 token I would already have some sitting in my hardware wallet.


#33

Curse and a blessing. Going that extra difficult step filters out a lot of people giving a larger window to enter as an early investor. When the network releases we’ll see some fireworks. If it was an EC token, maybe early fireworks but long slow steady buyins won’t be possible.


#34

I’d support having EMAID for all the benefits above, as @DavidMc0 and @happybeing describe:

  • cheaper to move MAID on ETH chain than Omni
  • will get added to exchanges much more easily
  • more exchanges == higher MAID $ price
  • brings MAID up to modern tech standards
  • helps the project for now
  • it’s not like SafeCoin is coming very soon anyway. It hasn’t even had it’s beta testing yet

This will make things possible like my free MaidSafeCoin paper wallets that I’m planning for around the world as per my Global safe Pods Proposal topic, and nice things like that. MAID on Trezor etc will be awesome :slight_smile:

Let’s do it! I’d be happy to help

(maybe I’ll do this for SAFE-FS Coin first, to get these benefits for our holders. We are smaller scale than full MAID, so MaidSafe can learn from my process)


#35

Brilliant idea - give it a trial run to see how it could work for MAID, and discover any challenges.

It’ll also mean you could scope out how much time / effort it’s likely to take, and figure out if it can be done with minimal distraction to the MaidSafe team.


#36

I’m wondering will lightning network solve this problem for us soon. If most transactions are happening off chain will see a reduction in on chain transaction cost?


#37

Hmm…interesting point. Does that depend on miners willingness to mine off chain transactions?


#38

I wouldn’t depend on the lightning network - who knows when it’ll be used for basic main-net Bitcoin transaction let alone Omni transactions.

I don’t know whether Omni could create some kind of lightning channel that would allow many Omni asset transactions to go through their channel to vastly reduce transaction costs, but I’d imagine this would have some kind of cost in terms of speed or centralisation of risk.

I hope I’m wrong and the lightning network comes out next month with very well functioning Omni support built in :smiley:


#39

I think this is an interesting point. This period of very high fees may blow over as new tech comes in and the hype dies down a bit.


#40

Lightning, having moved many transactions currently completed on-chain to off-chain, should free up more block space for regular transactions. Although on the other hand, if Lightning works well, it would probably attract more users, each of which requires an on chain transaction to open a payment channel. So we really need to wait and see.

Your question about miners mining off chain transactions doesn’t really make sense…if it is mined, it is on chain. But I guess you probably meant if miners would let people open payment channels, which I don’t see being an issue.