EIP-2009: Compliance Service #2009
Conversation
daniel-iobuilders
changed the title
|
Eip-1462 does something very similar and provides a reference implementation, the difference is that you can't skip those checks, with the proposed system I think you could. This implementation acts as a layer on top of other tokens but all functions from the original token are not affected by this, so any regular token (ERC20 233 777 etc) can skip all of the checks by calling directly the transfer like functions underneath and therefore skipping/making optional all AML and KYC processes. |
|
@kikoncuo |
|
I get it now, traditional tokens are not meant to be compatible with this, functionality is very similar to EIP-1462 but works as a deployed contract which other contracts can use. The main difference I see is gas cost:
It would be fairly interesting to see the exact gas difference, but my feeling is that you will be saving so much on the deployment and spending so little extra per transaction that this system would be efficient for a long time. Bests, |
|
Also to add to this note – if you have an external contract that you have had audited, you also can ensure that your smart contract cannot be hacked and the parameters changed. That has been an issue with a couple of the smart contracts that have been deployed with using others code.
My two cents..
Linda Carr
571-437-6540
Telegraph: https://t.me/Lcarr_P
“Always show up to the problem looking like a solution” - Marquis Phifer
From: Enrique Alcázar Garzás <notifications@github.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 10:35 AM
To: ethereum/EIPs <EIPs@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Subject: Re: [ethereum/EIPs] EIP-2009: Compliance Service (#2009)
I get it now, traditional tokens are not meant to be compatible with this, functionality is very similar to EIP-1462 but works as a deployed contract which other contracts can use. The main difference I see is gas cost:
1. You can save a lot of gas on deployment of the token contract vs using EIP-1462 (if the service is already deployed).
2. Transactions to the smart contract will be a bit more expensive than using EIP-1462 (Because of the packing and unpacking of the request to an external contract).
It would be fairly interesting to see the exact gas difference, but my feeling is that you will be saving so much on the deployment and spending so little extra per transaction that this system would be efficient for a long time.
Bests,
E
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2009?email_source=notifications&email_token=AIPD53G3YDR32ADE7HFR67LPX2IDBA5CNFSM4HMA24JKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODWPQ7XY#issuecomment-496963551> , or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIPD53FSMYWJZGV2B2KZEJLPX2IDBANCNFSM4HMA24JA> . <https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AIPD53GOJ7QPJ64URY6O3FDPX2IDBA5CNFSM4HMA24JKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODWPQ7XY.gif>
|
…tore * 'bls_keystore' of github.com:CarlBeek/EIPs: (47 commits) fix link to heading Fix spelling Fix email address Draft EIP: BLS12-381 Deterministic Account Hierarchy (ethereum#2334) Fix some URLs and require 2333 too Add name to metadata title (ethereum#2370) Draft: BLS12-381 Key Generation (ethereum#2333) Automatically merged updates to draft EIP(s) (ethereum#2397) Hard fork proposal to address the Ice age (ethereum#2387) Automatically merged updates to draft EIP(s) 1767 (ethereum#2262) EIP-2021: Payoutable Token (ethereum#2021) EIP-2009: Compliance Service (ethereum#2009) EIP-2019: Fundable Token (ethereum#2019) Use solidity/javascript highlighting in various EIPs (ethereum#2372) EIP-2018: Clearable Token (ethereum#2018) EIP-1996: Holdable token (ethereum#1996) Fix the username of @pizza-r0b in EIP-2309 (ethereum#2389) Clarify that empty accounts also return 0 in EIP-1052 (ethereum#2388) dType Functions Extension - Decentralized Type System for EVM (ethereum#2267) Fix spelling of GitHub [R4R] (ethereum#2369) ...
This EIP proposes a service for decentralized compliance checks for regulated tokens.
A regulated token needs to comply with several legal requirements, especially KYC and AML. If the necessary checks have to be made off-chain the token transfer becomes centralized. Further the transfer in this case takes longer to complete as it can not be done in one transaction, but requires a second confirmation step. The goal of this proposal is to make this second step unnecessary by providing a service for compliance checks.