Now let’s see what the community can do. This on first glimpse looks to be a potential goal/answer in many ways. Interested to see what everyone thinks of this.
10 Likes
Does this support OMNI or is ERC20 still required?
1 Like
I was on Live chat with a Shapeshift rep and was told they do not support Omni yet but someone can submit a request
9 Likes
Hi, I feel the pros outweigh the cons. I likes ERC-20 MAID. And ERC-20 MAID will make it accessible to more people. This is a very good thing for MaidSafe… Thx.
2 Likes
Let’s hope so. But my guess is it will not be supported. If this is the case, can that please be the decisive breakthrough and go for ERC20?
2 Likes
As I said before, perhaps we could collaborate with Thorchain to get Omni integration, perhaps as a community contributing to the cost in some way?
I mean, all other options involve spending, some of them eye-watering amounts, so it would perhaps be worth opening a dialogue.
9 Likes
I think the purpose of Made Safe is to get more people to use the maidsafe network to overcome government resistance. And erc-20 maid can bring more people to the maid network.
2 Likes
It would be good to know what the cost would be
1 Like
Yes I think this would be the best method to do the exchange. No need for anyone to do anything and at snapshot there can be corresponding Safe Wallets for each active MAID (BTC) address and then the owner signs a set message with their Safe Wallet address and the number of coins to transfer.
As you say this allows for small amounts exchanged over time and also allows for the use of multiple Safe Wallet addresses (if desired).
By having a corresponding Safe Wallet address holding the token and the user gets their tokens transferred from that wallet. This way then no mistakes would mean users can get more than they had in MAID at that address. Issue with this would be if a hacker can access these holding wallets.
Of course this method relies on a snapshot being used.
2 Likes
I was hopeful there might be a chance that Shapeshift would support Omni, but I dont think it makes a lot of sense to put a large sum of money into having Thorchain support omni while everyone is withdrawing support for Omni. On the other hand Erc20 will be around for a while.
Why don’t we ask Changelly to guide us with the legalities of the transfer process like Savage already proposed? They have done conversions to Erc20 and they should know more about it.
3 Likes
Well, we don’t know the costs or implications of either yet, so I don’t think we should write anything off.|
We may well end up with a few solutions to suit anyhoo.
5 Likes
Hi Jim, I agree we should work on both fronts and see if Thorchain can implement Omni and at the same time we should start consulting with Changelly or their legal consultants to figure out what legal consequences Maid-e would bring to the table.
In the end if we get a confirmation that this is not a taxable event but only a shift of protocol, people who want Maid-e, should be allowed to have Maid-e and people that want to stick to Maid-o, should also be allowed to stick to their Maid-o.
Imagine the split would be 50%-50% we have to find a way to register 50% of 452,552,412,000 coins on both sides. Minting 50% Erc20 and burning 50% of the Omnis.
Maidsafe should confirm that both coins can be exchanged for SN tokens when the time is there.
Having one token on two different blockchains has been done before.
1 Like
We won’t be able to give anyone any advice or confirmation on that. That will entirely be between the individual MAID holder and tax authorities in their own jurisdiction, so we’d encourage them to seek professional financial and tax advice in that regard.
I’m not sure I really follow you here. We can’t really force anyone to swap. I’ be doubtful we’d get anywhere near 50%… and it won’t really matter to most holders, only those who wanted to trade in ERC20.
1 Like
The discussion was what the legal consequences are for Maidsafe, and what the taxable consequences are for the holders, creating an erc20 token.
If for some reason a protocol switch would cause a taxable event for holders in certain countries, they can stick to their omni tokens.
Meaning this: If Erc20 would be minted, Omnis have to get burned or otherwise you’ll get an increase in the total coin supply.
1 Like
That is for a 1-way peg. For a 2-way peg the Omni tokens would not be burned but rather held in a contract until the ERC coins are returned.
2 Likes
What’s the bigger risk. Paying tax or possibly having stranded coins should Omni be abandoned (for want of a better word). All the risks need to be considered, not just tax
5 Likes
Only stranded till exchange, this would force the exchange of Omni.Maid to use the snapshot method since omni.maid cannot be moved. So if a ERC20 solution is found then most likely the socalled stranded coins will be ones people are holding till exchange.
2 Likes
Having MAID stranded is a bigger risk; we don’t know if/when MAID will be ready to be exchanged for safecoin. Timelines are an unknown in this project: what we do know is that the team are working like a well-oiled machine at the moment, as evidenced by the frequent testnet iterations.
Making it possible for MAID to be exchanged on more platforms isn’t just about price; it’s also about exposure. Plenty of people who were following the Safe network development in the past think the project is dead. Many others have not even heard of it, but they know of Filecoin, Storj, Sia etc. More exposure means more people who can contribute, test the network, come up with ideas, create apps, potentially great minds who can contribute to the development, etc. The potential benefits outweigh the risks.
Judging by the recent posts from @dirvine, it does look like this is a discussion the team is having amongst themselves, so I’ll keep my fingers crossed!
Anyhow, my two MAID cents. Enjoy your weekends everyone! 
11 Likes
The problems in this topic all seem to boil down to the (eventual) need for a custodian.
And that need stems from the inability of the Safe Network to directly verify bitcoin (omni) or ethereum (erc20) signatures.
If we could verify those signature types, then instead of having an ico snt custodian we could have many ico snt wallets already owned by the omni / erc20 / bitcoin / ethereum owners and many of the questions around erc20 and dex and snt transition would be resolved.
We don’t want to bloat Safe Network code with extra ownership logic for these older legacy networks.
We need a more generic ownership proof, something like ewasm or teal. This lets us have any sort of signature logic without having it specifically coded into the network. It’s a big change, not at all simple, but very powerful. It changes us from fraud detection to fraud prevention.
Something not discussed very much in the custodial situation is how to gather signatures - what will be an acceptable way to gather? Web form? Email? Forum post? Twitter DM? Can’t use SN itself since that would cost! How does the signature get from the sender to the custodian? Privacy is obviously a big factor here. Security too. How do we allow everyone, even technically incompetent people, to generate and communicate their signature? Accountability / transparency is another factor to consider. It could end up being very tricky. Would be keen to hear more thoughts on how to gather signatures.
11 Likes
And I thought Defi was going to simplify things? 
1 Like