Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Ditch whitelist in favor of opt-in #53

Open
gruvin opened this issue Apr 4, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Ditch whitelist in favor of opt-in #53

gruvin opened this issue Apr 4, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@gruvin
Copy link

gruvin commented Apr 4, 2024

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant