Add ERC: Sovereign Bridged Token #89

just-a-node · 2023-11-03T17:46:54Z

This PR follows the EIP -> ERC migration guide to migrate the original PR for EIP-7281.

eip-review-bot · 2023-11-03T17:47:25Z

File `EIPS/eip-7281.md`

Requires 1 more reviewers from @axic, @g11tech, @gcolvin, @lightclient, @SamWilsn, @xinbenlv

File `ERCS/erc-7281.md`

Requires 1 more reviewers from @axic, @g11tech, @SamWilsn, @xinbenlv

radeksvarz · 2023-12-19T08:38:27Z

ERCS/eip-7281.md

function setLimits(address _bridge, uint256 _mintingLimit, uint256 _burningLimit) external;

pls, change it to function setBridgeLimits(... to distinguish that from other ERC20 features / extensions.

github-actions · 2024-01-03T00:01:48Z

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

assets/eip-draft_bridged_tokens/fragmentation.png

assets/eip-draft_bridged_tokens/xERC20.png

ERCS/eip-7281.md

github-actions · 2024-02-03T00:01:38Z

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

agileurbanite · 2024-02-27T04:45:29Z

👍 would love this to be supported

SamWilsn · 2024-03-07T17:16:53Z

ERCS/erc-7281.md

+
+## Abstract
+
+This proposal defines a minimal extension to [ERC-20](../EIPS/eip-20.md) (affectionately called `XERC20`) that enables bridging tokens across domains without creating multiple infungible representations of the same underlying asset. It introduces the concept of a Lockbox to allow existing tokens to comply with the specification through a familiar wrapping mechanism and exposes new interfaces that allow token issuers to apply custom risk profiles at a per bridge per domain granularity. 


This is better! I'd still like to see a bit more detail on what a "Lockbox" is here, but you can work on that after you get merged as Draft.

SamWilsn · 2024-03-07T17:20:54Z

ERCS/erc-7281.md

+- Suppose Alice pays Bob her 100 USDT on L2. Bob now has 200 USDT.
+- Bob attempts to bridge the 200 USDT from L2→L1 through Bridge 2. This transaction fails because Bridge 2 only has 100 USDT custodied that it can give to Bob.
+
+The core property that this example illustrates is that locking tokens across multiple bridges on the token’s home domain makes it impossible to have fungibility without impeding user experience on remote domains. Minting or burning the token can solve this problem, but not all `ERC20` tokens implement a configurable mint/burn interface. 


Since you aren't talking about the interface, and are instead talking about the standard as a whole, don't use backticks:

Suggested change

The core property that this example illustrates is that locking tokens across multiple bridges on the token’s home domain makes it impossible to have fungibility without impeding user experience on remote domains. Minting or burning the token can solve this problem, but not all `ERC20` tokens implement a configurable mint/burn interface.

The core property that this example illustrates is that locking tokens across multiple bridges on the token’s home domain makes it impossible to have fungibility without impeding user experience on remote domains. Minting or burning the token can solve this problem, but not all [ERC-20](./eip-20.md) tokens implement a configurable mint/burn interface.

If you tick the "Allow edits from maintainers" checkbox on the pull request, I can apply these minor edits for you.

SamWilsn · 2024-03-07T17:30:53Z

ERCS/erc-7281.md

+
+All `XERC20` tokens MUST implement the following interface.
+
+```ts


Suggested change

```ts

```solidity

SamWilsn · 2024-03-07T17:34:32Z

ERCS/erc-7281.md

+Implementations MUST additionally satisfy the following requirements:
+
+- `mint` MUST check that the caller's current available `limit` is greater than or equal to `_amount`
+- `mint` MUST increase the supply of the underlying `ERC20` by `_amount` and reduce the current available `limit`


Suggested change

- `mint` MUST increase the supply of the underlying `ERC20` by `_amount` and reduce the current available `limit`

- `mint` MUST increase the supply of the underlying ERC-20 token by `_amount` and reduce the current available `limit`

SamWilsn · 2024-03-07T17:34:43Z

ERCS/erc-7281.md

+- `mint` MUST check that the caller's current available `limit` is greater than or equal to `_amount`
+- `mint` MUST increase the supply of the underlying `ERC20` by `_amount` and reduce the current available `limit`
+- `burn` MUST check that the caller's current available `limit` is greater than or equal to `_amount`
+- `burn` MUST decrease the supply of the underlying `ERC20` by `_amount` and reduce the current available `limit`


Suggested change

- `burn` MUST decrease the supply of the underlying `ERC20` by `_amount` and reduce the current available `limit`

- `burn` MUST decrease the supply of the underlying ERC-20 token by `_amount` and reduce the current available `limit`

SamWilsn · 2024-03-07T17:35:36Z

ERCS/erc-7281.md

+}
+```
+
+Lockboxes SHOULD additionally implement the following alternative `deposit` function for native (non-`ERC20`) assets.


Suggested change

Lockboxes SHOULD additionally implement the following alternative `deposit` function for native (non-`ERC20`) assets.

Lockboxes SHOULD additionally implement the following alternative `deposit` function for native (non-ERC-20) assets.

SamWilsn · 2024-03-07T17:35:43Z

ERCS/erc-7281.md

+
+Lockboxes SHOULD additionally implement the following alternative `deposit` function for native (non-`ERC20`) assets.
+
+```ts


Suggested change

```ts

```solidity

SamWilsn · 2024-03-07T17:36:11Z

ERCS/erc-7281.md

+3. On the target domain, the bridge then similarly `mint`s the token.
+4. When transferring back to the home chain, the `XERC20` can be unwrapped back into the original `ERC20` token.
+
+Using this mechanism, the underlying `ERC20` token is consolidated to the Lockbox contract, and shared across all supported bridges.


Suggested change

Using this mechanism, the underlying `ERC20` token is consolidated to the Lockbox contract, and shared across all supported bridges.

Using this mechanism, the underlying ERC-20 token is consolidated to the Lockbox contract, and shared across all supported bridges.

SamWilsn · 2024-03-07T17:36:46Z

ERCS/erc-7281.md

+
+## Backwards Compatibility
+
+This proposal is fully backwards compatible with `ERC20`.


Suggested change

This proposal is fully backwards compatible with `ERC20`.

This proposal is fully backwards compatible with ERC-20.

SamWilsn · 2024-03-07T17:38:22Z

ERCS/erc-7281.md

+
+## Security Considerations
+
+Please see the associated discussion in the **Rationale** section.


A reader coming to this document to specifically find security considerations won't really benefit from this sentence. Security considerations should be in this section.

github-actions · 2024-03-22T00:01:42Z

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

github-actions · 2024-05-04T00:01:37Z

This pull request was closed due to inactivity. If you are still pursuing it, feel free to reopen it and respond to any feedback or request a review in a comment.

just-a-node · 2024-06-13T17:26:19Z

Hi @SamWilsn, could you help me re-open this PR? I don't seem to have access (also cannot allow you to edit as maintainer it seems).

We have some updates to push based on your last round of feedback.

SamWilsn · 2024-07-22T19:31:54Z

@just-a-node sorry for the delay!

frangio · 2024-08-05T19:40:09Z

Is anyone actively championing this ERC? It would be great to get this onto the ERCs site if it is being actively developed. It is currently only here in this PR.

github-actions · 2024-08-21T00:01:58Z

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

Co-authored-by: pedrouid <pedrouid@users.noreply.github.com>

github-actions · 2024-11-09T08:18:30Z

The commit 052a0c8 (as a parent of eef4832) contains errors.
Please inspect the Run Summary for details.

SamWilsn

Couple of older comments that still need to be addressed, but this is almost ready!

SamWilsn · 2024-11-12T19:04:50Z

assets/eip-7281/XERC20.png

We prefer SVGs, but if you can't provide one, PNG is acceptable.

SamWilsn · 2024-11-12T19:04:59Z

assets/eip-7281/fragmentation.png

SVG if possible please.

SamWilsn · 2024-11-12T19:12:42Z

ERCS/erc-7281.md

+
+## Abstract
+
+This proposal defines a minimal extension to [ERC-20](../EIPS/eip-20.md) (affectionately called `XERC20`) that enables bridging tokens across domains without creating multiple infungible representations of the same underlying asset. It introduces the concept of a Lockbox to allow existing tokens to comply with the specification through a familiar wrapping mechanism and exposes new interfaces that allow token issuers to apply custom risk profiles at a per bridge per domain granularity. 


XERC20

Technically you're only supposed to put code in backticks. If you changed your interface name to just XERC20, then you could have your name and satisfy the rule.

ArjunBhuptani added 6 commits November 3, 2023 11:38

Add draft EIP

8fe7220

Add image assets

f828f37

Minor spec fixes

da8e88e

Fix title

1e1b20f

Fix build + add aggregator section

ff07bbb

improve migration path spec

0f9cca8

just-a-node requested a review from eip-review-bot as a code owner November 3, 2023 17:46

github-actions bot added c-new s-draft t-erc labels Nov 3, 2023

eip-review-bot added the e-consensus label Nov 3, 2023

Remove draft

d1d8945

github-actions bot added the w-ci label Nov 3, 2023

Fix syntax errors for formatter

a9b1ece

just-a-node mentioned this pull request Nov 3, 2023

Migrate EIP connext/monorepo#5061

Open

radeksvarz reviewed Dec 19, 2023

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added the w-stale label Jan 3, 2024

SamWilsn requested changes Jan 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot removed the w-stale label Jan 19, 2024

github-actions bot added the w-stale label Feb 3, 2024

just-a-node added 4 commits February 17, 2024 16:03

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into ERC-7281

5e14ed0

Address comments requiring non-material changes

386de6e

Fix link to diagram

85ffda3

Fix eipw validation check

b5f14cc

github-actions bot removed the w-stale label Feb 18, 2024

More lint fixes

4fc6882

eip-review-bot added the e-review label Feb 18, 2024

eip-review-bot changed the title ~~Add ERC-7281: Sovereign Bridged Token~~ Add ERC: Sovereign Bridged Token Feb 18, 2024

github-actions bot removed the w-ci label Feb 18, 2024

Fix one more eipw validation check

0134fe7

github-actions bot added the w-ci label Feb 18, 2024

just-a-node added 2 commits February 17, 2024 18:15

Linked asset typo

ed435a3

Move fungibility section and expand on abstract

6cf3fbc

SamWilsn reviewed Mar 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added the w-stale label Mar 22, 2024

radeksvarz mentioned this pull request Apr 16, 2024

Add EIP: Sovereign Bridged Token ethereum/EIPs#7281

Closed

github-actions bot closed this May 4, 2024

Merge branch 'ethereum:master' into ERC-7281

a6233ac

SamWilsn reopened this Jul 22, 2024

github-actions bot removed the w-stale label Jul 23, 2024

Merge branch 'master' into ERC-7281

7a87c76

github-actions bot added the w-stale label Aug 21, 2024

This was referenced Oct 1, 2024

EIP Editing Office Hour Meeting 45 ethcatherders/EIPIP#360

Closed

EIP Editing Office Hour Meeting 46 ethcatherders/EIPIP#363

Closed

github-actions bot removed the w-stale label Oct 18, 2024

yorhodes mentioned this pull request Nov 7, 2024

Add ERC: Crosschain Token Interface #692

Open

Add co-author

052a0c8

Co-authored-by: pedrouid <pedrouid@users.noreply.github.com>

SamWilsn reviewed Nov 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add ERC: Sovereign Bridged Token #89

Add ERC: Sovereign Bridged Token #89

just-a-node commented Nov 3, 2023

eip-review-bot commented Nov 3, 2023 •

edited

Loading

radeksvarz Dec 19, 2023

github-actions bot commented Jan 3, 2024

github-actions bot commented Feb 3, 2024

agileurbanite commented Feb 27, 2024

SamWilsn Mar 7, 2024

SamWilsn Mar 7, 2024

SamWilsn Mar 7, 2024

SamWilsn Mar 7, 2024

SamWilsn Mar 7, 2024

SamWilsn Mar 7, 2024

SamWilsn Mar 7, 2024

SamWilsn Mar 7, 2024

SamWilsn Mar 7, 2024

SamWilsn Mar 7, 2024

github-actions bot commented Mar 22, 2024

github-actions bot commented May 4, 2024

just-a-node commented Jun 13, 2024

SamWilsn commented Jul 22, 2024

frangio commented Aug 5, 2024

github-actions bot commented Aug 21, 2024

github-actions bot commented Nov 9, 2024

SamWilsn left a comment

SamWilsn Nov 12, 2024

SamWilsn Nov 12, 2024

SamWilsn Nov 12, 2024


		## Abstract

		This proposal defines a minimal extension to [ERC-20](../EIPS/eip-20.md) (affectionately called `XERC20`) that enables bridging tokens across domains without creating multiple infungible representations of the same underlying asset. It introduces the concept of a Lockbox to allow existing tokens to comply with the specification through a familiar wrapping mechanism and exposes new interfaces that allow token issuers to apply custom risk profiles at a per bridge per domain granularity.

	The core property that this example illustrates is that locking tokens across multiple bridges on the token’s home domain makes it impossible to have fungibility without impeding user experience on remote domains. Minting or burning the token can solve this problem, but not all `ERC20` tokens implement a configurable mint/burn interface.
	The core property that this example illustrates is that locking tokens across multiple bridges on the token’s home domain makes it impossible to have fungibility without impeding user experience on remote domains. Minting or burning the token can solve this problem, but not all [ERC-20](./eip-20.md) tokens implement a configurable mint/burn interface.


		All `XERC20` tokens MUST implement the following interface.

		```ts

	- `mint` MUST increase the supply of the underlying `ERC20` by `_amount` and reduce the current available `limit`
	- `mint` MUST increase the supply of the underlying ERC-20 token by `_amount` and reduce the current available `limit`

	- `burn` MUST decrease the supply of the underlying `ERC20` by `_amount` and reduce the current available `limit`
	- `burn` MUST decrease the supply of the underlying ERC-20 token by `_amount` and reduce the current available `limit`

	Lockboxes SHOULD additionally implement the following alternative `deposit` function for native (non-`ERC20`) assets.
	Lockboxes SHOULD additionally implement the following alternative `deposit` function for native (non-ERC-20) assets.

	Using this mechanism, the underlying `ERC20` token is consolidated to the Lockbox contract, and shared across all supported bridges.
	Using this mechanism, the underlying ERC-20 token is consolidated to the Lockbox contract, and shared across all supported bridges.


		## Backwards Compatibility

		This proposal is fully backwards compatible with `ERC20`.


		## Security Considerations

		Please see the associated discussion in the Rationale section.

Add ERC: Sovereign Bridged Token #89

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add ERC: Sovereign Bridged Token #89

Conversation

just-a-node commented Nov 3, 2023

eip-review-bot commented Nov 3, 2023 • edited Loading

File EIPS/eip-7281.md

File ERCS/erc-7281.md

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

github-actions bot commented Jan 3, 2024

github-actions bot commented Feb 3, 2024

agileurbanite commented Feb 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

github-actions bot commented Mar 22, 2024

github-actions bot commented May 4, 2024

just-a-node commented Jun 13, 2024

SamWilsn commented Jul 22, 2024

frangio commented Aug 5, 2024

github-actions bot commented Aug 21, 2024

github-actions bot commented Nov 9, 2024

SamWilsn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

eip-review-bot commented Nov 3, 2023 •

edited

Loading

File `EIPS/eip-7281.md`

File `ERCS/erc-7281.md`