You heard YugaLabs. Time to start thinking of a new chain for Apecoin.

As many of you may know. The OtherSide mint was a success and a failure to holders. I sat in the BAYC/MAYC discord during the mint for 2.5 hours and not once was it possible to mint even a single piece of land under 1.7ETH let alone two.

YugaLabs has tweeted that “It seems abundantly clear that ApeCoin will need to migrate to its own chain in order to properly scale. We’d like to encourage the DAO to start thinking in this direction.”

This should not be taken lightly, and the suggestions should not be whichever “ethereum killer” one is currently holding bags in. Think about the entire community and the future of ApeCoin/Yuga-Labs.

There are the obvious choices like solana, and polygon/matic. However we should not ignore other PROVEN chains such as ATOM/Cosmos whom crypto.com has built their entire infrastructure on top of. Another thing to keep in mind, is how viable is the use of ethereum layer2s such as Optimism, Metis, etc. I’ve used both and have seen transactions that are normally $150 on eth layer1 cost around $3.

Opening up the discussion for realistic, objective opinions.

8 Likes

Really thinking on similar terms with my recent post. I posted up something really rudimentary last night while just spitballing ideas and am really curious if L2 was considered for minting, then moving back to the L1 (ETH) for much, much cheaper than just minting directly onto the ETH blockchain.

Robbie on Twitter from Immutable-X just reached out directly to say that their minting process would be something to look at and I couldn’t like their project more. I also believe other L2 chains should be looked at such as Loopring for the minting process, where if my understanding is correct, would eliminate the problem with gas entirely

I will admit, although I can understand the theory of zkrollups used by L2’s, I am unsure if this is an appropriate implementation for future minting projects as l am only in my bachelor’s for CS now and it still escapes my reach atm.

I’m entirely unfamiliar with the Solana blockchain minting prices also, but at the VERY least, we should be putting up bids, then minting over time to avoid a gas catastrophe like last night.

Very many solutions are possible, and I’m excited to continue hearing everyone’s best to solve this expensive dilema with one of the first projects associated with Apecoin.

Still bullish, still buying the dip that appears to be coming in strong :slight_smile:

May round 2 be smoother, cheaper, and twice as fun

5 Likes

Also just to state my own thoughts, I DO NOT believe building our own chain is going to build our valuation as there already great products to keep us on the ETH blockchain. There is 0 reason for us to build our own chain when the ETH chain imo is the best place for liquidity and security. Our biggest issue is GETTING THERE. Solana would be entirely unideal, ie why I mentioned IMX and Loopring. They are already fully established L2 chains (IMX more-so than LRC imo) ready to fulfil our purpose for absolutely no fees or time for implementation.

Really hoping to hear from a person that would have their reservations on something like IMX or Loopring. As a direct response to your post, I don’t believe using a different chain than ETH would be a smart move to move from in terms of liquidity alone. I’m bullish on both Cosmos and Polygon and don’t think these projects are ready for our scale.

Love the ideas though. Just think staying on the ETH chain would be top priority, and therefore using an already established L2 like the ones I mentioned would be incredibly optimized for our usage.

Cheers!

7 Likes

I am of the opinion that we should stay on ethereum and explore layer2s. I will write up a more detailed proposal tomorrow. However i think staying on ethereum(ERC20) keeps us on metamask which is most adopted and easy to use.

We don’t need to go the polygon/zk-rollup route. Optimism, Metis, and Arbitrum are all standard eth architecture and fees are incredibly low (and fast)

5 Likes

Hey there MAYCMecca I already wrote one and highly recommend Immutable-X as a first choice, followed by Loopring, did you already have a chain in mind?

Here’s my post. I’ve been talking about this a lot, really not trying to come off as pushing one of these chains and just stating an opinion. I think the ETH chain is the way to be and just love hearing people smarter than me break it down why I’m wrong, so really open to criticism so I can learn perhaps why this wasn’t implemented already.

My understanding though, like you are suggesting also is that L2 would be the way to go, so which L2 are you leaning toward.

Sorry if I’m spoiling your future prop lol, if you want to wait to have all the details put together there I understand! :smiley:

2 Likes

Forgot to link my post and just saw you already listed the L2s you were recommending, curious why those over a project such as Immutable or Loopring, but sorry for missing that!

Link: Future Apecoin minting on L2 instead of L1

2 Likes

I don’t think most BAYC owners would ever agree to bridging their assets from Ethereum onto a more centralized network (or L2). So, my gut is that another chain will be presented for use with the Otherside, and other assets will remain on mainnet.

I hope they use L2. Cosmos IBC might be an option too. Riskiest move is something more centralied where Yuga’s VCs, banks, and laywers get to push them towards restrictions and KYC.

Must keep BAYC as web3 as possible. Remember why we’re here.

9 Likes

I’m really intrigued by using our own chain, but just feel like it would be putting an incredible amount of resources into a solution already that’s already been solved by other chains. Like you stated

And this is why I’m stating that using LRC would be ideal. It’s a DEX solution. Creating our own chain would only centralize it even further, but I understand that that at least it would be centralized within the org.

I’m just curious why you think that the owners would not want to use zkrollups or something equally secure to transfer back to the ETH chain. If we’re staying on ETH in the end, would being on L2 at all be the actual barrier due to smaller market caps?

Just making sure I understand your point, I think you are saying the owners wouldn’t use L2 due to the centralization of those methods? I feel like LRC solves that, but could be wrong.

Thanks for chiming in @netdragonx.

Cheers!

1 Like

Yeah, my comment was a little unclear, but essentially I don’t want them to force (or convince) people to transfer ownership of L1 BAYCs to a bridging contract that allows a less-decentralized chain or L2 to have control over the asset. No idea what will actually be presented, so will reserve judgement for now, but i_got_a_bad_feeling_about_this.gif

6 Likes

@netdragonx Ah I see, thanks for clarifying and I think I agree. I just hope to God we don’t build our own chain as centralization issues would probably become worse due to the distribution of ape and NFTs heavily sitting in the laps of whales. Either way glad people are on board with not leaving the ETH chain altogether.

I really think a solution would be viable without a full migration. I was really intrigued to see Vitalik B. comment saying that gas optimization in the smart contract wouldn’t have solved the simple issue of supply and demand.

I’m wondering if perhaps a solution would perhaps to be minting through a new chain, built by Yuga through LRC that would be directly on top of the ETH block chain specifically for minting projects.

It wouldn’t be a full migration, but it would be a middle ground.

Love the thoughts though, I just 100% believe integrating L2s into the minting process will be critical for the future. Hoping to see more DAO members build these ideas up soon. Twitter right now is so much more active with Apes, hopefully the conversations shift to here soon.

2 Likes

Minting aside, the real question is which chain should house the APE-denominated marketplace for items, resources and other in-game transactions. Answering that is dependent on knowing how frequent and how small the transactions will be. If they are very frequent and small, maybe an L2 makes sense.

If the answer is not-Ethereum, future mints of top-level NFTs (i.e. not items) could be done via a mintpass on the low-cost chain which can then claim the NFT on mainnet. Top level NFTs (i.e. not items) should be on mainnet 100%.

Not using Ethereum for the marketplace has its benefits but also its drawbacks: fragmented liquidity for APE across chains, bridging concerns (see $620m Ronin hack), centralization concerns (ahem, Solana).

There’s plenty that could be done on Ethereum to mitigate what happened with the mint, so moving to another chain is an option, but it’s far from the only option.

5 Likes

I definitely see the concerns and honestly besides Immutable-X’s game God’s Unchained minting on their L2 chain, there hasn’t been a lot of case proof other than this single example of a working system that leads to safe NFT minting and after that, but for bridging concerns, I don’t believe it gets safer than zkrollups (perhaps zksyncs will further this idea into a more usable case for us in terms of security, but I believe we have it now).

Would a fully denominated marketplace be essential and is there a significant downside to having multiple multiple marketplaces? I believe so, but we’ve been successful so far without, so who knows. I know for a fact we could start building a market LRC’s new network. I will personally reach out to the Loopring team and re-propose my first AIP proposal with the technicals of implementation included. Even if it is hard shut down I’d love to finally get feedback where our major security concerns with minting through an L2 using zkrollups would be.

I also believe there is a solution for cross liquidity as coins can be transferred to L2 with low gas with chains integrated on top of the ETH chain using the same tech that enables cheap minting.

I think the biggest issue is coming from a lack of innovation with already existing tools. I really hope I’m right and these conversations spark some more fantastic discussion about solutions

Just curious, I thought extending the minting phase would have solved the issue, but Vitalik B put out a thread, and it appears my idea would be swept into the same issue and not solved the high costs

It appears both prolonging the minting to a longer time to mint, along with other forms of “fixing the smart contract” as many are suggesting was possible, would be a farfetched and naïve solution to the issue, which puts us right back at step 1.

I will improve my proposal to a much more professional degree and consider your concerns while addressing my write up.

We’re all gonna make it,
Cheers!

I think I’m a little bit confused by your point, but perhaps you were quoting me to get one of the badges. :stuck_out_tongue:

All the solutions you and I mentioned keep us on the Eth network and let us use metamask still so this is the part that confused me

Are you suggesting that optimistic rollups provide a certain advantage that zk-rollups don’t? Because even in the link you posted on L2 fees, Loopring and Zksync from Starkware are at the top. I really like your solutions also, especially after checking out Arbitrum more, I just don’t see why we would roll out L2 using zkrollups as opposed to other techs that are doing a similar or identical rollup when they all keep us on the same ETH chain in the end.

Hope I’m coming off as confused and not challenging, cause some of this can be overwhelming even for someone familiar with programming to a moderate degree.

Thanks for any insight,
Cheers

PS - also on a hilarious note, as we’re talking about them, Polygon is tweeting about Apecoin at the same time, small world

1 Like

Quick thought/question…if Eth 2.0 is implemented this summer/fall would that not take care of the problem?

1 Like

@Mav911

My understanding is that you are correct with that assumption if I’m comprehending it correctly.

I believe gas issues occur because of limited block heights forcing higher and higher bids for transactions to be included. Will that really change based on the proof system? I do not think so, even though I am happy for the benefits proof of stake will bring.

L2s will solve this issue instead in my opinion and that is why I continue to suggest solutions such as Zksync from Starkware, Loopring, Immutable-X. Another user suggested also using optimistic rollups as opposed to zkrollups in chains such as Optimism (I think, not familiar with that particular chain just yet). Either way leaving the ETH chain would be incredibly unideal regardless of ETH 2.0 solving the gas issue as there are already possible secure solutions using L2.

My personal question is: why can’t we have it all??? A platform where we can connect whatever we want??? I know more then one company that has it and accepts different wallets , example Binance and MetaMask …

2 Likes

I’m surprised there isn’t more discussion here yet…

I think a proprietary blockchain is a powerful tool that should be considered. Not many people want to move apes away from Ethereum. Crypto(dot)com successfully launched the crypto(dot)org chain earlier last year. They later introduced “Cronos”, which “allows rapid porting of apps and smart contracts from Ethereum and EVM-compatible chains”. There are examples of success and failure to learn from, and people willing to work toward the best outcome within this community. Creating safe and useful infrastructure won’t be a fast process. But there should be value in building interoperable tools which can also stand alone.

3 Likes

There are the obvious choices like solana, and polygon/matic. However we should not ignore other PROVEN chains such as ATOM/Cosmos whom crypto.com has built their entire infrastructure on top of. Another thing to keep in mind, is how viable is the use of ethereum layer2s such as Optimism, Metis, etc. I’ve used both and have seen transactions that are normally $150 on eth layer1 cost around $3.

Sorry, this entire post reads as super uneducated in the technicals behind these blockchains. ATOM / Cosmos is NOT proven - it doesn’t even work. Solana shuts down whenever it gets busy. Polygon is a side chain that has vulnerable bridges linked to ethereum and is not secured by the ETH layer.

Creating our own CHAIN is an insane idea that, to me, seems totally unnecessary. ETH 1 is slow and expensive, yes, but even in extreme times it doesn’t shut down. It works. It’s proven.

After the merge and true layer 2s come out, and are fully activated, like Arbitrum, or more likely zkSync or something like that, we will not need any other chain.

If we migrate to another chain $APE becomes worthless, IMO.

7 Likes

Also who TF was the person who tweeted that tweet about a new chain, who authorized that, was it founders, some social media intern, who? We need answers.

1 Like

This is the traditional issue with DAOs. So far the people that have contributed seem to be more focused on scoring “gotcha” points on my post rather than trying to deliver a constructive conversation points to drive the conversation forward. Someone went as far to say that Cosmos hasn’t been proven while CDC has run cronos and 5billion worth of assets on it for the last 1.5 years+

To be clear, I wouldn’t refer to myself as a “maxi” of anything. However I think Ethereum is the best ecosystem to build on. If not for the long standing, proven decentralized nature (with flaws), then first mover advantage in the NFT space alone. I merely started my post by saying “i know there are a lot of chains to consider such as solana and polygon” because i’m not oblivious to the fact that those ecosystems do have massive followings with their “maxis” but again… i believe the way forward is ethereum and more specifically layer2s.

I would be surprised if anyone here thinks it’s wise to move off ethereum, let alone have ape build their own chain. It seems what we would have to do is have a discusssion around whether we build on optimism, metis, or arbitrum vs. polygon having already integrated apecoin into their ecosystem (a side chain).

2 Likes