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

Replace ERC-1155 With ERC-6909 For Multi-Token Accounting #357

Closed
jtriley-eth opened this issue Sep 24, 2023 · 4 comments
Closed

Replace ERC-1155 With ERC-6909 For Multi-Token Accounting #357

jtriley-eth opened this issue Sep 24, 2023 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
p0 Very important to fix

Comments

@jtriley-eth
Copy link
Contributor

Component

Singleton, 1155 Balances, Pool Actions (swap, modifyPosition, donate, take, settle, mint), Gas Optimization, General design optimization (improving efficiency, cleanliness, or developer experience)

Describe the suggested feature and problem it solves.

The current interface for multi-token accounting is ERC-1155, which contains constraints for unnecessary callbacks, unnecessary batching, and all-or-nothing transfer delegation. Replacing ERC-1155 with ERC-6909 reduces code size, improves the transfer delegation system, and improves gas efficiency for deployment, transfers, and burning.

Describe the desired implementation.

Replace ERC-1155 with ERC-6909 in the inheritance tree, replace the callback-based burn mechanism with a single burn function, and remove the ERC1155Receiver interface.

Describe alternatives.

The ERC-6909 interface does constrain a total supply variable, leading to an additional disk write on mint and burn.

Additional context.

No response

@snreynolds
Copy link
Member

snreynolds commented Oct 12, 2023

Thanks for the contribution @jtriley-eth . Tagging this as p0 for our team to compare this impl to some other ideas we have. We are weighing this against a custom ERC-1155 solution vs. just keeping the original ERC1155 impl .

Also, related to #197 and this #46

@snreynolds snreynolds added p0 Very important to fix and removed triage labels Oct 12, 2023
@snreynolds
Copy link
Member

#294

@zhongeric
Copy link
Contributor

We're actively exploring how we can work towards a standard (either 6909 in particular or 6909-like), and so let's keep this issue open and reference it in any future PRs / work on this front

@hensha256
Copy link
Contributor

Closing as its done

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
p0 Very important to fix
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants