-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 137
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
EVM release master checklist #119
Comments
I would vote for removing from the scope the bridging pieces. ERC20<->nERC20<->NEP-21 switches can be complicated: ERC20 is a standard, while an individual token contract can implement additional functionality that a developer would probably want to preserve in the NEAR EVM. And I believe the reasoning for the developer to migrate to NEAR EVM is not only to allow for low-fee transfers of tokens, but also to use all the other functionality of the token contract at low fees. In this case, how to match this with NEP-21 token? We don't want to force a developer to develop an additional NEP-21 compatible NEAR contract, do we? |
It's critical to support common ERC-20s, without them most of the applications that want to use NEAR EVM won't be able to even start. E.g. they will need nETH, nDAI - which are bridged tokens, not a copy of DAI on NEAR (which is a separate thing, and probably should have a different name if someone forks Maker on NEAR) Given we have applications that also will use these tokens in the native NEAR environment, tokens that exist in NEAR EVM should be exchangeable with native ones. If we don't have nERC-20 -- NEP-21 connection, the only way to exchange them will be to withdraw to Ethereum and then deposit back to NEAR - which seems really weird. |
@ilblackdragon @djsatok We need to clarify exactly how we want tokens to be bridged from ETH to NEAR EVM. There seems to be several approaches discussed:
|
Let's fix the naming first: @nearmax, here are some considerations:
So, my point of view on the issue (the mix of the current bridge and your suggested second option):
|
@mikedotexe, @ilblackdragon, additional observation to put in the checklist: We should check that all the methods from Ethereum JSON-RPC are covered in I'm not sure that this is true right now: The latest spec for Ethereum JSON-RPC is here and it's not containing I'm not sure what protocol we should implement in |
I see, you are suggesting to have a hard link between nERC20 and NEP-21 contracts. This might actually be the only way to do it. This would require modifications to the factory in https://github.com/near/rainbow-token-connector |
Just to make sure I'm following, the "hard link" mentioned above is a trusted, smart contract we have written that lives on the NEAR EVM and connects to the "outside world" of NEAR NEP-21, yes? Basically a locker, but with burn. |
This is a running list of required pieces to release full blown support for NEAR EVM. The EVM delivery is split into phases. Tasks that are able to be developed by community are marked with [Bounty].
Phase 1: Initial release: (?) the week of Nov 2nd
The goal of the release is to ship EVM as soon as possible to a controlled network to start testing it.
nightly_protocol
) - feat: introduce nightly protocol version nearcore#3503Acceptance criteria
Phase 2: Full scope Betanet release: (?) before EoY
The goal of Betanet release is to ship a public
Beta
of NEAR EVM. By the end of this phase we expect to receive a mostly working EVM without additional features development, only bug fixes and usability improvements.near-api-js
supports secp256k1 keys inKeyPair
- Add support of secp256k1 key pairs near-api-js#440near-web3-provider
supports EVM Adjusting NearProvider to EVM Precompile aurora-is-near/near-web3-provider#58Acceptance criteria
Phase 3: Testnet release
Acceptance criteria
Phase 4: Mainnet release
Acceptance criteria
Icebox
Check with Illia:
This section contains issues mentioned by Illia. One need either to remove them or add to one of the above phases.
near-web3-provider
)near-web3-provider
)near-meta-relayer
)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: