Hello I’m Sumamu and I can assure you hewwo shitcoin doesn’t need an audit
3 Likes
I think it would be great if we can make this happen. These ERC tokens would definitely improve the usefulness of P2P swaps.
I’m also curious to know what level of auditing would USDT or USDC need for example. And do we have the competence within the community to do that?
2 Likes
We don’t need to (re)-audit WBTC, USDT or USDC. Just make sure they’re fully compatible with the bridge.
6 Likes
The poll has closed and there appears to be support for all three candidates.
I propose that we bridge them all.
I’ll submit an AZ to gauge pillar sentiment.
3 Likes
Looking forward to see how this plays out. Once a decision is reached, we can get started on it.
7 Likes
I’m going to add this topic to the Dev Agenda
1 Like
~2-3 weeks.
3 Likes
Would this also mean that Syrius users are able to store stablecoins as ZTS tokens?
Can you please provide a status update?
That’s right, wrapped USDT and USDC.
2 Likes
Is there any reason we need to call them wrapped? Since we can literally just call them usdc or usdt (same goes for btc obviously). Would prevent the bitter taste of “wrapping” which turns off some people
1 Like
Some symbol naming schemes:
- USDC
- USDCETH
- ZUSDC
- WUSDC
I think 1 is disingenuous since those issuers don’t recognize ZTS yet. When they do issue their own tokens on NoM, we’ll need to distinguish between native USDC and wrapped.
We could consolidate USDC from various chains under symbols 3 and 4.
Disingenuous towards whom if it makes no difference for end users?
1 Like
The initial assets won’t be supported by their respective issuers. We should distinguish our versions to avoid ambiguity.
I guess we can use the clean symbols for now, but I’d expect to refactor that liquidity and all code dependencies at a later date.
Maybe Circle and Tether won’t issue a ZTS and this won’t ever be an issue. 
1 Like
I think its an interesting experiment. If you can trustlessly replicate the otiginal underlying on NoM and you can ensure back and forth conversion, there is mo difference between the original snd the “wrap”. The different protocol used to hold/transact it doesnt matter in the slightest imo. In case of stables, since thry’re permissioned, their issuers could freeze thr assets in the TSS. But in case of e.g. BTC, we can literally create feeless trustless Bitcoin.
The primary perspective we should take is always that of the end user. Not the backend 99% wont ever care about.
Same difference between holding spot and a non levered perp. If the latter is freely transferrable on chain and you can always convert it to spot, it becomes equivalent to spot.
You can’t really “ensure” back and forth conversion, they will have different security guarantees. This is more related to the backend stuff, not something users will worry about too much, but still reasonable enough to differentiate as Sol suggests.
If we name them the same, it could be messy eventually when we deprecate one and have users burn our version in favor of the “official” native tether on NoM.
I would use the same name for now and deal with the issue at a later date.
I understand what you’re saying and I can see how clean symbols are more attractive for users.
I don’t get to decide the symbol name; waiting for @sumamu to chime in, in case there’s some technical limitation I’m not aware of.
The abstraction and consolidation of equivalent assets will need to be handled correctly by orchestrators and/or the bridge UI.
BTC and wBTC have different counterparty risk. We could combine them but if one of the underlying assets becomes unavailable, the entire ZTS supply will be affected.
re: issuers freezing funds. It’s possible Circle/Tether won’t deploy on NoM since we don’t offer that capability.
1 Like
Any updates?