I was following until here: 🥸🧐?
“This means that for a time period of 24h the assets to be transferred are being controlled by a single person. This is why the amount is to be transferred in batches and the person(s) in charge should be slashable by governance in case of misbehaviour (and therefore have enough at stake).”
Im gonna have to ask…doesn’t this go against important decentralization standards?
Will user be able to trust the peg with such a glaring single p of f?
The f being the fact that the whole 100btc being proposed, is being transferred to a private person with full control for a whole 24 hr period. I mean, It only takes a few seconds, maybe less, for that whole 100btc to be stolen and what about the safety of this key development team member? How many other key developers will know who this person is and when they’ve received this transaction and the control of the 100btc?
If this proposal is to be actually accepted
maybe refine and decentralize the ongoing transfer contract, making certain there is an actual 2-way peg without the proposed “crutch” 24hr period.
What if liquidity is 1000btc in the future? What if liquidity is 10000btc in the future? This person gets everyone’s liquidity offering in their hands for a full 24hrs?
Will the governance provide protections and insurance for the funds and for this key developer who magically gets everyone’s money?
Isn’t it true that at an any level of liquidity this kind of flaw is not really responsible in a decentralized market? I mean, especially one named soveryn after individuals who never lost ownership of their lands and assets. Yet in this proposed system, one seemingly “super sovryn” gets all the other soveryns contributions for a whole day and night…? I feel this is definitely not right.
I think Sovryns should be comfortable in the pool and know that it’s going to grow exponentially and that they can sleep well because they’re able to trust verifiable, well-tested code, and not have to go back to establishing fragile human trust.