As suggested before as part of genesis there could be transfers to wallets corresponding to BTC/ERC20 addresses and the user uses their private key to either receive the SNT or take over the auto generated SNT wallets. This means the person only needs to enter their private key into a simple app made for this and the SNT become available.
This way its automated pretty as much as can be done
Not ruling anything out at this stage, but I’d be erring on the side of simplicity, and something that doesn’t require 3rd parties for users to redeem. That’d be the ambition anyway.
I do get that, but snapshot approach does come with quite a bit of uncertainty around market transition, and requires tight sequencing, which increases risk.
On paper it looks clean, but there is a lot of assumption, and a mass of complexity skipped over in statements like:
It’s just worth thinking about what we can control, and what it out of our hands, and what becomes a dependancy on 3rd parties. i.e.:
Couple of related points:
Within our control to avoid
Already happening, outside of our control, and will continue no matter what route we chose, so can be take out as a factor in the decsion.
Ah but those who will do it will be using whichever method. Stopping one only means they use the other. Its the people not the method that is the cause and problem.
That is why i say there is little difference concerning sharks as to which method is used for conversion.
By that assessment snapshot approach increases the potential for scammers then, because already redeemed (e)MAID can go on trading.
It makes no difference since its the people and they will use actual MAID or fake MAID. Without the sharks there is not an issue. The tokens used is immaterial to them, just the promise of cheap maid that people can convert to SNT.
The burn method means that people think they can use the fake maid to burn and get SNT. Person X hears about the conversion and decides to grab some MAID before they are all gone, scammer sells fake MAID
The snapshot method means there is that knowledge out there that buying MAID is worthless whcih means less people can be scammed. How many less is not known. Person X has a chance of knowing that they can no longer participate in the conversion and will buy SNT instead. What that chance is is up for debate but is greater than 0
So no, I do not agree burn is safer for this one issue
I don’t think it’s the responsibility of official exchange or MaidSafe to deal with fake tokens.
Those already exist at the moment on I believe Binance Chain or other chains. The only duty that they have is to provide one source of truth about what the official contract addresses are.
Assuming third parties didn’t all cooperate, and exchanges didn’t halt trading / inform their exchange users, I think it’s far more likely that more people would keep trading MAID after a snapshot having not heard about any snapshot / transition, than more people would buy fake MAID in DEXs.
DEX use has always required checking contract addresses / asset numbers to be safe… all sensible DEX users know this, but many Bittrex / HitBTC users will not be aware of the MAID / SNT transition details.
I don’t see a big difference here in case of a restart;
Only difference is the network checking against a list of snapshot balances vs an up-to-date list of burn transactions.
Burn certainly seems better to me if third parties (mainly Bittrex & HitBTC) don’t engage closely in the process… for example, what would happen to people with MAID balances on Bittrex if there was a snapshot & Bittrex didn’t cooperate to ensure users receive SNT somehow? Their MAID would be useless.
I can totally understand not wanting to rely on third parties to play-ball.
Okay I understand your suggestion with burn, which makes sense and also removes those coins from circulation and at same time also allows those to still be traded until burned. Only question remains how long will that burn monitoring period stay open?
What about people who burn too late? I assume this will be an open-ended process then where people who burn onboard to receive SNT.
Good questions.
Perhaps a burn process could be used until a finalisation occurs in the form of a snapshot, only when the CEXs are cooperating sufficiently to ensure nobody loses out from that?
Not sure how the ‘burn list’ for valid burns would be able to be updated on the Safe Network over time to ensure recent burns are available to redeem, while that process not being a security risk.
Looking forward to hearing more details as they’re fleshed out, but it seems Jim has is under control 