hmmm, let’s say we do not burn the omni-maids deposited in the pooled BTC address. In that case token holders who would want to switch back to omni could claim their omni token by delivering their ERC20.
because we don’t have a smart contract infrastructure on BTC, I don’t see how the switch back could be guarenteed automatically without involving a custodian (and therefore a KYC process)
besides @happybeing, I disagree with what you say. A public commitment to accept the ERC20 version is enough. Do you have a token sale agreement between you and maidsafe that your omni token will be exchangeable against safecoins ? no you don’t. You are just relying on a public commitment. (by the way that is exactly what makes MAID considered a security token in some jurisdictions like the US. MAID represents a claim.)
@happybeing this suggested set up above requires no contract to be signed by maidsafe. Just a public commitment. It can be considered as a community effort and everything would be onchain, auditable and opensource.
What’s the vision for onramping to SAFE? So let’s assume the MVP has been developed, beta tested, and released. How do people obtain SAFEcoin on SAFE and begin using it?
My instinct is that if an ERC-20 pre-token is added, it should either be done with little to no work (read: distraction) by the dev team or with work by the dev team being for features that will be needed irrespective.
The conversion or addition of ERC20 might also make the coin, and possibly whole project more fuzzy for the general (crypto)public. Even MAID as a placeholder for Safecoin is a bit difficult for some, especially when we add that Safecoin does not have blockchain. That alone makes some heads spinning.
Now what if we have placeholder for a placeholder, or do we have two placeholders, how they relate to actual seat etc?
That said, I’m not totally against this idea, there are lots of potential upsides to it. I just don’t want to see rushed decisions here. And I really appreciate the generous offer of @SwissPrivateBanker!
though that question doesn’t affect the before picture… one road into safecoin and after the conversion many options for converting xzy and fiat into safecoin, will be welcome.
Assuming that Maidsafe also do some ETH20 conversion, is a lot of work they are not asking for - and potential legal complexity that is not necessary, where there is option to convert back to Omni.
As for the conversion it will be interesting to know if it is to be a snapshot or a conversion over time - as conversion over time with choice by holder to burn Omni for safecoin avoids a lot of stress.
I wonder there’s slight assumption there, though interesting thought…
going down that route suggests that safecoin would not be for sale after the snapshot because of the risk of network reset nulling those transactions… which is why I wonder more about a route that allows conversion over time, where people accept the risk they are happy with and move at risk to the network - once.
What I see here is a noble attempt to save this project being disdained by the company and some community members. Regardless of his self interest, which is fair tho, @sw is offering the hardest and costy part. As far as I know this project relies on maidsafe price with only one exchange currently offering it. Once we lose this last exchange, how is the project sustained? We have been believing the vision for all these years, but sometimes it is hard to swallow some stuff.
It depends on what idea they have for the conversion. If it is a tool in which you sign that you have an address, there should be no difference between BTC and ETH. If we burn MAID then it will be different.
There are two ways to prove ownership of a crypto address:
Message signature
Satoshi
The snapshot solution involves creating as many safecoins address as there are btc address.
It involves community members to actively identify themselves and associate their btc address with a safe network account ?
It means there still needs to be an interface somewhere for token holders to prove ownership of their btc address and claim safecoins.
I am just saying this kind of questions we have right now will be very relevant during the safecoin switch anyway
I’m guessing but perhaps the network will just use public addresses and accept a signed action that pwns the address and sees safecoin balance that matches the Omni.MAID. That (I imagine) is simple for what is understood of Omni==BTC addressing… and a populating of the network with a snapshot of the balance of Omni. Any doubling up adds complexity.
but I know nothing of ETH… the talk of ETH20 being a wrapper is not obvious… but I can’t see how that would retain the balance even if it uses the same address. It would be a conversion back into Omni space that would allow single simple snapshot of balances.
(Also, if ETH errors and there is slippage in the number of coins, conversion back corrects that.)
Agreed. Without official support and equivalence (i.e. ERC20 MAID also exchangeable for SAFE), I think this conversion initiative is DOA. The level of risk would be too much for the token holder.
So what happens if Bob swaps OMNI to ERC20, but can’t find market to go back again? Or if Bon swaps OMNI for ERC20, which he then sells to Alice, who now wants OMNI to redeem for SAFE?
Unless what I’m hearing is that Bancor will keep all exchanged OMNI tokens to facilitate a conversion at will back to ERC20, I don’t see how this would work. Moreover, it requires trust that the OMNI tokens will be available when needed. Sounds like a lot of potential confusion.
Another big problem with the snapshot methodology is that the moment the snapshot is taken, there shall be no more trading on secondary market, for the change of ownership operated on the exchange makes the tokens worthless for the party who acquires them since he was not originally party to the snapshot
It means you take the risk to have neither maids nor safecoins traded on any exchange for months !
I took that to be the case… that the Omni are rotated through a pool on a 1:1 basis… and back again from ETH20. That process ensuring that the number remains the same total of Omni that is put forward towards supporting this ETH20 effort… and the shortage of those driving the difference.
Just clarifying to avoid any confusion here.
Bancor is a deFi protocol developped by the Bprotocol foundation in Zug Switzerland. Bancor is not an operator.
there are two ways to build an omni/erc20 bridge:
a centralized way where regulated custodians are involved, (e,g https://wbtc.network/). With this method KYC is inevitable, but holders are protected as their funds are handled by regulated entities.
Thanks for the clarification. Even with either of the two options laid out above, there would still need to be some guarantee that whoever has purchased ERC20 MAID can redeem those tokens for OMNI MAID even if they never originally held OMNI MAID (e.g., the Bob converted OMNI to ERC20 >> Bob sold ERC20 to Alice >> Alice wants to redeem OMNI so she can redeem SAFE.). All of this seems so cumbersome that I wouldn’t buy ERC20 MAID if I couldn’t use it to directly redeem SAFE.
Have to agree with this. If kids around the world can figure out how to code an Ethereum smart contract in Solidity, then surely devs who are building an infinitely more complex new internet can solve for how to convert an ERC20 token to a coin which does not yet exist. Or imagine this: with a token value that’s reflective of what many of us think this project is worth, the team could hire an army of developers familiar with Solidity and who could also help to not only speed to launch but also support developing the SAFE dApp ecosystem thereafter.
I’m a bit disheartened that there seems to be risk-adverse-ness in the least beneficial ways. It’s like every attempt to change the status quo (which has been ever-depreciating value and public interest in this project) gets shot down or waffling support that turns into no support—whether that’s this OMNI to ERC20 proposal or the many other exchange and marketing proposals people have shared. I just don’t get it.
As noted further up this chain, I was neither in support of or against this idea until a more clear plan was presented. @SwissPrivateBanker is presenting a clearer plan. Are there risks involved? Yes, but in the grand scheme of things the potential upside (the price of MAID and influence of this project increases thereby increasing the resources MaidSafe has to complete and support launch) outweighs the negatives (MAID loses the last decent exchange it’s listed on which already is unable to meet global demand, and this project’s reputation continues to suffer presenting an even further uphill battle to successful launch).
MaidSafe is a team of brilliant developers. This is a community that’s willing to pitch in and help. We have to do something. There’s no reason why we can’t pull together to get this done—whether that’s executing this ERC20 conversion and/or getting listed on additional exchanges.