You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Maintaining a whitelist amidst an unpredictable sea of DEXs and DEX aggregators seems untenable. It certainly isn't "decentralized" and also ties the contract creator to a responsibility they could do without in their lives.
Solution
Instead, why not allow or indeed require wallets to opt-in to NFT mint/burning aspect of 404's? This could be done prior to any engagement with the 404 contract or after-the-fact, minting as many NFTs as their current balance permits.
If opting in is a one-way process — not able to be reversed — then all other functionality and tokenomics are retained for all users.
Efficiency
There is a gas cost in having the contract maintain this list of opt-ins, which will in most cases be considerably larger in size than the existing whitelist scheme. (You could have both, I suppose, with opt-ins overriding the whitelist for security/trust reasons.) The extra SSTOR cost might be optimized by packing groups of 256 accounts into single bit binary boolean's — 256 opt-ins stored in a single storage slot — based on your now deterministic NFT token IDs — though that implies that a holder must have at least NFT to be opted in. Just a thought.
Conclusion
You're welcome. :p
gruv0r
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Opportunity
Maintaining a whitelist amidst an unpredictable sea of DEXs and DEX aggregators seems untenable. It certainly isn't "decentralized" and also ties the contract creator to a responsibility they could do without in their lives.
Solution
Instead, why not allow or indeed require wallets to opt-in to NFT mint/burning aspect of 404's? This could be done prior to any engagement with the 404 contract or after-the-fact, minting as many NFTs as their current balance permits.
If opting in is a one-way process — not able to be reversed — then all other functionality and tokenomics are retained for all users.
Efficiency
There is a gas cost in having the contract maintain this list of opt-ins, which will in most cases be considerably larger in size than the existing whitelist scheme. (You could have both, I suppose, with opt-ins overriding the whitelist for security/trust reasons.) The extra SSTOR cost might be optimized by packing groups of 256 accounts into single bit binary boolean's — 256 opt-ins stored in a single storage slot — based on your now deterministic NFT token IDs — though that implies that a holder must have at least NFT to be opted in. Just a thought.
Conclusion
You're welcome. :p
gruv0r
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: