Suggesting counterplans for Dev Protocol to be compatible with Layer2.
Although we’re sure that Dev Protocol will be compatible with Layer2, we’d like to hear your opinions on the following points.
[ To which Layer2 Dev Protocol should be compatible with?]
- We’re considering zkSync or Optimism as a candidate.
- We’re not considering the combination use of plural L2 solutions.
[How Dev Protocol can be compatible with Layer2?]
- We’ll use L2 as main net instead of adopting the combination use of L1 and L2.
- After the transition to L2, the maintenance for L1 protocols will be suspended.
Currently, Ethereum has an issue on scalability, which indicates its low processing performance.
Since Ethereum has a small number of transactions to process per second, people have to pay more commission due to the network congestion caused by the increase of operating applications on Ethereum. Layer2 would be one of the solutions for it.
Briefly speaking, Layer2 is a technology to improve transaction process on Ethereum and to reduce the commission.
If Dev Protocol is compatible with Layer2, the issue of price jump in various transactions would be solved.
The following table shows examples of Layer2:
|Name||Rollups||Smart contract||Contract Language||Supporting Tool|
|Optimism||Optimistic Rollups||✓||Solidity||Truffle, Waffle, HardHat|
Rollup is one of the scaling technology used on Ethereum. After executing transactions outside L1 (Ethereum), fast and low cost transactions can be realized by submitting organized transaction data or evidence to L1 as well as verifying at L1, while L1 security is maintained at the same time.
Rollups have ZK-Rollups that verify the validity of transactions by utilizing zero knowledge proof as well as Optimistic Rollups, which functions based on the premise that valid transactions are executed (unauthorized transactions are not executed), without necessarily bringing all the transaction data to L1.
ZK-Rollups have an advantage in taking less time for the completion of transactions compared to Optimistic Rollups, although the difficulty in the implementation of smart contract is one of ZK-Rollups’ shortcomings.
One of the merits of zkSync is its fast withdrawal of token from L2. Optimistic has an advantage in using solidify, assets so far, as well as knowledge gained from Truffle and Waffle. Keeping the transition cost low is another strong point of Optimistic.
Since character strings cannot be used freely in the current version of Zinc, a contract language for zkSync, there would be some technical barriers at the time of creating Property Token. Therefore I think Optimistic is a better choice.
Reference to L1’s storage data and smart contract methods cannot be executed with L2 in default. Strictly speaking, they can be done with Optimistic, however, in that case, there would be major limitations e.g. (1) the gas fee costs much, (2)advantages of using L2 are minimized, (3) it takes 7 days to reflect the results.
All things considered, we’re thinking about newly creating Dev Protocol at L2, and supporting users’ migration of tokens such as DEV tokens as well as Property tokens. Since the storage information of L1 is reset when moving to L2, staking should be executed again at L2 after migrating DEV tokens and Property tokens from L1. In other words, we would create another Dev Protocol with cheap gas fee.
If you have any comments on it, please let us know.
N / A