Hey everyone,
We were originally scheduled to begin EVM beta testing today but in order to get the test fully prepared we are moving this to Tuesday October 22nd (Another 125,000 tokens up for grabs). The dev team needs a bit more time to make sure the test is fully prepared so that we can learn as much as possible from it and ensure it’s as effective as it can be.
This will be the final release before launch, so it’s important we get everything right!
When dealing with ETH balances or tokens, the balances are typically represented using up to 18 decimal places, which is related to the smallest unit of ETH (wei), not the address itself. Because a Nano = 9 decimal places, and Atto = 18 decimal places we thought to change the terminology for the EVM test from “nanos” to “attos” @Atomic
Please note: We are finalizing some things, regarding adding the correct network in MetaMask, which will have to be added to our guide. But be rest assured, it will be updated before the October 22 release.
Thank you for your understanding and patience. We look forward to seeing you all during the test next week!
In the first Beta phase one of the main goal was to incentivise newcomers to start running nodes, bringing new people into the project. A reward distribution curve helped incentivise new participants even if they ran quite few nodes.
In the latest phase rewards have been distributed without a distribution curve. As rewards are huge those with relative large amount of resources have been able to take a relativ % of the total reward pool.
Without a distribution curve those running few nodes have been getting very few rewards in tokens. It is difficult to understand why there is no distribution curve as it barely reward newcomers at all. First week of phase 2 about 400-500 joined, second week down to 300. Is the goal of attracting new people running nodes still a goal, so that in the future the network will be resilient to not go under as we saw the last week when one of the larger players pulled the plug?
I believe @storage_guy can use any wallet, but we tested MM. We had a internal test using blockchain payments and that is what we used.
Yes @Southside I am very well versed with MM and can support it very well. Been using it for many years. I have experience with other wallets such as Phantom, Solflare, etc but when it comes to a software wallets not sure why you would choose any of those against MM. MM is wildly used and the most popular wallet out there, as well as being very well tested.
I have also been doing some testing using ARB L2 on the Ledger Nano X (available in both US and UK). So far it seems to be handling it well, and seems like a good choice if you want to keep some of your ARB L2 tokens safe in cold storage. Tested on both iOS and Windows without any issues. I worked on a guide on how to setup a Ledger Nano X, as well as make ARB L2 payments using it which I plan to release closer to TGE.
I know many of you are not a big fan of crypto, and this is not a “crypto project”. What I can say is I’m pretty well versed in that ecospace. I am here to help you navigate it.
I have not been doing testing for quite a while but have just been reorganising machines to get going again - there are lots of changes going on since my last effort! I have had a MM account for a long time but have not used it much (I only buy BTC occasionally).
Is there an existing doc that summarises all the things that one needs to do to get setup for testing? - including running nodes?
Relax, I expect its all coming together. There is plenty resources for running nodes. Latterly it was the network itself that was the problem. I am sure @rusty.spork will reference/combine that at the top of the “And heres what you need to do for MetaMask” doc that should appear soon
Metamask has good help and support in the app itself. It has a Learning Centre that I havent explored myself, but I expect to be perfectly adequate. They didnt get that market share by providing crap advice/help.
So far the only thing we have released to you is the guide I made for MM that I linked in this post. Information on adding the network and further instructions will be given before we launch the EVM test.
Funny enough that is not how I would swap USDT from ETH chain to ARB chain. I would send it to a CEX, which would cost maybe $1 worth of ETH (ETH) gas at current congestion. Then assuming the CEX supports ARB chain (I use Robinhood and Coinbase for USDC/ETH), you will pay a fraction of a penny to send it to your wallet. Using MM to bridge yourself will be more expensive then my approach.
You would have to give me more info on your error for me to investigate, but without any info my guess is you don’t have Eth in that wallet to facilitate the bridge from ETH to ARB.
I was just poking about to see what the bridge section of MM looked like.
Last time I did cross-chain stuff, I had @Dimitar to help me a while ago.
You are quite correct, not only was there no 1000 USDT, there was only ETH dust. Im not poking about blindly with real tokens to lose. Been there, done that 8-10 years ago. When losing 5-10 ETH did not hurt as much…
We are not talking about the supply of the token. We are using the word “attos” from now on instead of “nanos” in the beta test for EVM.
A “atto” is 18 digits. 18 digits is the smallest fraction of a ETH. I picked a random ETH address and looked at their ETH balance which is: . 128968927795548371 ETH. Add the characters up and there are a total of 18. Does this make sense?
That is what i am asking is the token going to be 18 decimal places. Yea for the testing it is, but will that carry through for the jan launch and then later the native token?
I try to avoid bridging myself to avoid fees. I would rather send to a CEX whatever chain I have the crypto on and then send it from whatever chains they support. CEXs have reserves on many chains of common crypto such as ETH, USDC, USDT, and so on. Currently this would cost me $0.73 in gas to send ETH to CEX, and a fraction of a penny to send on the ETH on ARB from the CEX back to my wallet.
Can you ask then, and get back to me tomorrow or whenever? Be nice to know and since the ERC is 18 decimal places then I’d hope they are carrying that through to the network “accounting” (IE when a node asks for payment its to 18 places)
Thats good news. I’ve been suggesting going to that since the change from the individual “coins” being a data element. It removes any questions over how much will 1 nano be if the token skyrockets to all the world’s wealth (I doubt this in my remaining lifetime). Also great in that charging could be a function of chunk size (not linear since even 1 byte costs close to what 100KB does)
Opens so much more possibility. Nano was adequate for sure and prob handle everything for a long while. But 18 places is more possibilities.
EVM Beta Testing Postponed to October 22
@Atomic 
