AIP Idea: Otherside as an Avalanche Subnet

If the wardens do not submit transactions, the bridge is halts. That has never happened on this bridge afaik. SGX is a really interesting and powerful tool for this type of bridge. And the Wardens are incentivized to process.

Besides, there would probably be a claim window (and incentives) to convert your Ethereum $APE to the native coin. You’ll get paid $AVAX and $APE to convert.

They won’t want to leave an indefinite window with any bridge. After the claim window, the old $APE on Ethereum will still be bridgeable at will via your bridge of choice

And as vitalik said - the future may be multi chain but it’s probably NOT cross chain. Bridges don’t work. Ape locked in an avax/eth bridge is a hack disaster waiting to happen.

6 Likes

Ok, so we shifted from validator cannot freeze the funds to validators can halt the bridge.
Look, no system is perfect, and we are early days, but the dishonesty will never help.
All things aside, thank you for the constructive replies.

1 Like

Agree on the strong no. Just for the record, there is another fully decentralized blockchain, but it’s a useless pet rock, so your point still stands.

4 Likes

There seem to be some misconceptions around what is needed to setup for subnet validators. Each Avalanche subnet validator must stake 2,000 AVAX in addition to the subnet’s token (assuming APE in this case) to validate transactions on the subnet.

Currently there are 1,450 Avalanche validators which already have at least 2,000 AVAX staked. In order for these nodes to also validate ApeCoin Subnet, they will only need to stake the required amount of APE, as they already have the AVAX portion. To incentive validators, current live subnets DFK and Crabada allocate a portion of gas fees paid on the subnet towards validator rewards, with remaining fees either burned or put towards community grant funds.

So how many validators should ApeCoin DAO start with? And who would these validators be? That is entirely up to ApeCoin DAO to decide.

3 Likes

I think it’s worth calling out at this point that currently all but one vote for this proposal came from accounts who have been in this forum for less than a day.

34/35 accounts were created in the last 24 hours

Presumably the majority of traffic, votes, and subsequent commentary to this topic are being led by a group of AVAX shills who’s only interest is in bag pumping.

Hard no on this one, and as a community we should be VERY skeptical of the motivations behind this post, the commenters, or the votes that come to it.

11 Likes

I don’t work for Ava Labs, so I can’t speak authoritatively on the bridge. But the fact is, any bridge will be halted if it fails. And any bridge can fail. We are forced to use a bridge anyway, even with an L2. So the issue is a debate about which bridge is best.

The bridge must suffice, of course. But the destination chain must be optimal. That is more important. And subnets are simply the optimal infrastructure for scalable, cheap, secure, decentralized $APE-powered EVM smart contracts.

I have not seen a single argument justifying why the $APE economy should be paying rent back to $ETH.

An ETH L2 will be:

:x: an economic siphon paying rent to the ETH L1
:x: a technical burden requiring reorg mitigation and precluding optimal MMORPG use of $APE

Anyway, the Avalanche bridge is arguably the most secure of any bridge yet.

Care to explain why an ETH L2 is is more economically favorable for $APE? I don’t see why you want to pay fees in anything that is not $APE

3 Likes

Supernets are live and kicking and it supports many 3rd party bridges and very soon supports rollups too.Why would APE users prefer EVM L2 that settles in Avalanche and not Ethereum?

Hard no from me, APECOIN will be valueless if it moves off Ethereum

3 Likes

Wow take a look at the profiles of the people that voted all joined a day ago, with reads in the 1min range. It took me an hour to read through this thread

8 Likes

Looks like the Avalanche team going to suicide its reputation.

4 Likes

Switching to anything outside of Ethereum is a horrible idea. The first NFT project I ever participated in was Cometh.io and it required bridging ERC-721s to Polygon in order to play their P2E game. The mods/staff experienced nightmares when it came to assisting medium-low experience users. Bridging the NFTs ultimately cost me more money when it came time to bridge them back to Ethereum in order to sell them.

I would appreciate it if the Avalanche team quit trying to pump their project here, as well as their fanboys. It’s also worth noting that the DAO does not control The Otherside, Yuga does… anyone with a little research would understand this.

3 Likes

Either we stay on ETH L1 or we bridge $APE somewhere.

As a holder, I would like to read at least one single argument explaining exactly why Avalanche is an inferior option.

From an economic perspective, $APE stands to benefit. From a technical perspective, subnets are the best.

Please explain why I am wrong.

As a holder of $APE and BAYC I disagree with this. I only trust my ape with Ethereum’s security and I want to see Otherside on an L2. Immutable or ZkSync are the best options and Yuga will get a ton of goodwill from the ETH community for embracing the cutting edge tech that checks all the boxes: speed, flexibility, security.

It’s very simple: The validator set. Avalanche subnets do NOT share security. Yuga would have to bootstrap a new validator set and this would undoubtedly be extremely centralized.

With rollups, you do not need to bootstrap validators. $APE does not need to be an L1 token. We can use it within the ecosystem itself without emitting it as inflation rewards for chain security. This is a solved problem already.

2 Likes

Agree. I like what Immutable is proposing.

2 Likes

Liquidity. Highly liquid markets can handle big sells without impacting price as much (aka slippage).

The Ethereum ecosystem has much, much, much deeper liquidity than that of Avalanche. It has a far more robust and long-standing DeFi ecosystem, upon which more sophisticated financial applications can be built, with a bigger audience and deeper liquidity.

If $APE were to migrate to AVAX, it would lose bigtime on one of the most important factors: liquidity. This would have a direct effect on the price of the token, and as of now that matters a lot.

We can set aside technology entirely for the fact that without liquidity, there is no healthy market that can be attained. And Ethereum’s ecosystem blows away Avalanche’s in liquidity.

5 Likes

The validator set. Avalanche subnets do NOT share security.

Shared security is a bad thing. Why do you think Luna shut down IBC after their attack?

Yuga would have to bootstrap a new validator set and this would undoubtedly be extremely centralized.

Not necessarily. Ava Labs would likely gift the DAO lots of AVAX to add more validators. Avalanche is the only form of decentralized consensus that scales in the number of validators while keeping throughput extremely high. Other systems simply aren’t as “decentraliz-able” - nowhere remotely close.

for @mg :

Liquidity. Highly liquid markets can handle big sells without impacting price as much (aka slippage)

This is the biggest issue but it’s highly debatable. I think it’s mostly an optics issue. L2s are not Ethereum. We’ll be bridging somewere one way or another. Existing L2 exhibit issues attracting liquidity from ETH’s L1. I personally have not been impressed with what’s available on ETH L2s so far.

It’s harder to build on a chain that goes backwards and requires rent payment back to some other chain on a regular basis. I think of readers this proposal will gain a lot of insight over the months as more subnets roll out, and we compare the experience to that of L2s.

Shared security is a bad thing. Why do you think Luna shut down IBC after their attack?

This is a bad take. Sharing security from an ultra-decentralized validator set is not bad at all. ETH will never need to shut down like Luna because there is no algo-stable coin directly tied to the chain’s security.

Not necessarily. Ava Labs would likely gift the DAO lots of AVAX to add more validators. Avalanche is the only form of decentralized consensus that scales in the number of validators while keeping throughput extremely high. Other systems simply aren’t as “decentraliz-able” - nowhere remotely close.

The DAO adding a few validators to their subnet without shared security is not the same as inheriting many billions of dollars worth of security with 0 effort by launching this on a rollup.

2 Likes

It’s a bit dangerous to assume that rollups are risk free just because someone told us that they “share ethereum security” we really need to be super objective and evaluate these technologies by their own merit. The sequencers have been going down a lot for these rollups. Honestly speaking, Avalanche has a pretty good track record and we should keep an open mind to all possibilities.

3 Likes

How familiar are you with immutable X starkware etc. As far as I know, Immuntable doesn’t generic support smart contracts yet. Starkware has dedicated nodes that construct the zk-proofs. There’s a lot more to this than just saying something “inherits ethereum secruity” imo

1 Like