@netdragonx Zkrollups are 100% secure and we’d be going from L2 (IMX, Loopring, etc) to L1 ETH chain.
Loopring for example is a dex. There is no centralized place for them to do what you are saying and it appears you are confused as to the whole purpose of an L2 to L1 transfer.
We would NOT be leaving ETH, we’d be minting on L2, then 100% securely transferring back to ETH (L1) for quite literal pennies.
I agree we should not be exploring other L1s as the Ethereum chain is ideal for our purpose, but to ignore the solution of minting on an L2, again such as Loopring or IMX, then transferring back to L1 seemlessly would be absolutely the best thing for our coin, our future projects, and easier entry for new NTF collectors, all while giving us more money by avoiding blowing it all on worthless gas.
L2 minting is 100% viable and by reading your comment, perhaps I misunderstood, but to say
shows a misunderstanding of L2 tech entirely. We are minting on L2 and transferring directly to L1, it would be hard coded into the contract and not be able to just be “stepped in” on like you’re referring to.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I would be happy to clarify some of the confusion on zkrollups and L2s if it would help.
I think ZkSync could also be a good candidate here. They are a fully EVM compatible zk rollup that will be launching soon. It could be really cool to have BAYC be the flagship project on ZkSync for its launch.
In the meantime… I think that brings us back to trying to optimize smart contracts which VB talks about in this twitter thread:
I’m unsure of where to start, as I thought an obvious solution would be to prolong the time frame minting was available and spacing out waves to when gas prices where set limits. I thought it would at least reduce the wars and bidding, but perhaps the longer time frame would have exacerbated the problem even further by upping demand, and even further raising gas prices.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the technicals of zksync from Starkware, but I believe we would maintain liquidity while using this solution or something similar in a zkrollup from Loopring without completely fragmenting the ApeCoin liquidity pool. Again, perhaps I am wrong on that, but I believe there are workarounds. Again, perhaps I’m just trying to force a rectangle through a circular hole with my misunderstanding, but I will reach out to both teams and try to either find a solution or at least come up to pace with a better technical understanding.
Starkware also believes they could have helped, and it’s not a project to scoff at, I don’t believe they would make idle claims if they were truly unable to step in.
I really don’t want to roll out (haha… or (zk)rollup) viable L2 solutions before hearing more and more intelligent people pick this apart.
At the very least, I will explore this and additional solutions while not paying more close attention to highlighting and addressing and exploring the minting workaround, as L2s built on ETH chain… I THINK are still on the Eth chain, but I could be naïve about finding a workaround.
I believe @mg just addressed the main issue with that from ApeCoin being contracted to mint on the ETH chain, BUT I believe there is already a workaround for that if I understand correctly. Reaching out to the teams now at Starkware and Loopring (and IMX) to see if there is an answer to our main concerns of liquidity cross chain and minting solutions.
I will continue to try and refine a proposal when I receive an answer, but if anyone else wants to take a chance at it, I would happily collaborate or provide information I found.
It’s cool what SKALE is doing but for really high value things like Apes, I want the full security of the Ethereum validator set. The only way you get this is with a rollup. Using a rollup also means you don’t need to use an external bridge to get between L1 and L2, which would be another risk vector. Using a zk rollup also means you can bridge back and forth without any type of lockup/time delay (i.e. 7 day withdraw for Arbitrum/Optimism).
Leaving Ethereum ecosystem entirely would be a terrible idea. Community was born here, Apes should stand their ground. Rollups will eventually capture most if not all transactional execution on Ethereum. And this is good for us. There is a clear trend is blockchain specialization: consensus layer, execution layer, data layer. Ape should not focus on consensus, it should focus on users and their interactions.
From all the Web3 companies Yuga is best positioned to drive the open metaverse. They do not just own some tech, they own the product that everyone want. And this is the only way to reach mass adoption. IMHO all the steps they took, were taken entirely for that reason. Why else would you buy IP rights for the first NFT collection on Ethereum and give it back to the community?
Udi had a great take on that:
$APE is the hottest girl in the club, everyone wants it to be on their platform. We need to control our own narrative, and we have power to do so. Launching on zkSynk or ImmutableX will be a weak play, it will put us in the same basket with the other projects on its platforms. We need to own the platform, and the value flow from our platform should accrue to $APE.
I personally think, StarkEx could be the best solution for us (ApeX sounds cool btw). In this case StarkWare will function only as a service provider. Our brand value will not be diluted. And we will receive support from the best guys in this business. Liron from StarkWare team has actually proposed APE Community to have a DAO voting to deploy on StarkEx:
StarkEx has several benefits that are very applicable for us. It would allow us to define the business logic for our platform: useful in the context of NFTs, metaverse, GameFi. Transactional costs will scale logarithmically with the transaction count: crucial for mass adoption. Different data availability modes: we can launch with a completely decentralized Rollup Mode (higher transactional costs) or somewhat centralized Validium Mode (lower transactional costs) where Yuga and StarkWare together can serve as committee. I think, there is a possibility to have a mix of both, where some core features with low transactional requirements are deployed in Rollup Mode, while potential on-chain games and experiences are deployed in Validium Mode giving minimizing the transaction costs for in-game interactions.
I think that we need to ask StarkWare team to provide a detailed specification and roadmap for such deployment and proceed with the AIP if the conditions of such deployment look reasonable.
and I have it in my proposal. Love this writeup and couldn’t agree more. Loopring team and IMX have also already reached out and I’ve emailed all 3 (Starkware, Immutable-X, and Loopring) to see if they can assist in any way while I update my proposal.
Loving this community, excited that people are already on board with using rollups on on next project. Also look at L2s using optimized rollups. Both zk and optimized rollups should be looked at for this solution. I will continue to refine my proposal hearing everyone’s opinions and repost soon.
I’ve already reached out to IMX, Zksync from Starkware, and Loopring. Would you be comfortable with reaching out to the Polygon team and bringing in the technicals of implementation? If not I’d be happy to reach out to their team to ask questions of how we could implement to write up in a proposal myself.
I really believe setting up a market on L2 for minting would be incredibly ideal instead of leaving ETH and would love to bring real substance behind our ideas
Thank you @ASEC for your ideas and the ApeCoin DAO community for the thoughtful discussions. A moderator will get in touch with the author to draft the AIP in the appropriate template. Once the AIP is drafted and meets all the DAO-approved guidelines, the proposal will be posted on Snapshot for live official voting at: Snapshot
Follow the here as further updates will be posted here in the comments. @ASEC please see your messages for the next steps.
@ASEC Thanks for kicking this one off. I’ve got a few recommendations that I would love it if you might consider.
Ultimately this kind of proposal could help the DAO take its time in coming up with a long-term solution for ApeCoin, or at least buy us 3 months. The 3 months bit is because a proposal that directly conflicts with another approved proposal has to wait that period of time. So something like AIP Idea: Otherside as an Avalanche Subnet would have to wait at least 3 more months to resubmit.
One thing I did want to call out specifically was this:
This is untrue. Ethereum moving to proof-of-stake only changes its consensus mechanism (away from proof of work) and does not make any meaningful changes to its execution. Thus both fees and speed will remain unchanged. While other solutions may help out with this later on down the road, The Merge will not change execution from the status quo.
Now…here are some explicit suggestions:
Perhaps consider updating the title to “Keep ApeCoin within the Ethereum ecosystem”. This would help by not specifically cutting out potential Ethereum rollup scaling solutions (specifically L2’s that use Ethereum’s security model, not a side-chain).
Yuga Labs stated in a tweet that they believed ApeCoin needed to move to its own chain in order to scale. We the ApeCoin DAO believe that, at least for the time being, ApeCoin should remain within the Ethereum ecosystem, and not migrate elsewhere to an L1 chain or sidechain not secured by Ethereum.
Migrating to a different chain is a costly, risky, and complex endeavor with many moving parts that may, if not thoughtfully considered, result in catastrophic loss, or at worst, abandonment by Yuga Labs and other entities that would otherwise meaningfully to ApeCoin.
By migrating ApeCoin away from Ethereum, it would then find its home on a different chain than the original assets that inspired it—Yuga Labs’ own NFTs
This may have unintended downstream effects, such as Yuga Labs no longer supporting or using ApeCoin in association with its NFTs like Bored Apes, Mutant Apes, or Otherside Deeds
While gas costs and transaction speeds may be a concern for some with Ethereum, especially when considering a desire to grow the ApeCoin ecosystem, moving it away from the Ethereum ecosystem is neither necessary, but potentially detrimental to ApeCoin holders, and the interests of the DAO.
Ethereum and its respective L2’s remain the largest collected ecosystem of NFT projects, builders, liquidity, and users. Moving ApeCoin away from this ecosystem could be detrimental to its health and the DAO’s goals of growing the ecosystem.
Many Layer 2 solutions that are secured by Ethereum, and exhibit meaningful improvement over fees and speed, already exist and could potentially be explored in a future AIP. These solutions include optimistic rollups such as Arbitrum and Optimism, or zk-Rollups such as StarkNet, zkSync, and Polygon Hermez.
Note L2 rollups differ from sidechains such as Polygon or alt-L1’s such as Avalanche in that they rely on their own security, as opposed to Ethereum’s consensus.
There are few examples of migrating an ERC-20 and its attached ecosystem successfully to another chain, and there may be many risks of loss along the way.
Ethereum’s security remains second-to-none
By delaying moving to any ecosystem other than Ethereum, we provide ApeCoin and the DAO with the greatest chance of making the right decision that will work best for all interested parties
ApeCoin MUST remain within Ethereum, or within an L2 scaling solution that is secured by the Ethereum blockchain. While this proposal makes no such recommendation for ApeCoin other than remaining on Ethereum, it does not preclude subsequent AIPs from suggesting a move to an L2 scaling solution secured by Ethereum.
Steps to implement (suggestion):
There are no additional steps associated with this AIP.
The start date would be immediate, with any competing AIPs withheld until after a period of 3 months following the acceptance of this AIP.