Payment Abstraction V2 Audit by CodeArena dropped
>>61943419So what changed?Though this was already out...
>>61943419Staking 1.0 audit where?
>>61943430we're gonna get more infos in 10 days when the audit goes live
>>61943459>>61943529nvm I just saw chainlink says its a permissionless dutch auction design now. Basically in v1, fees from services and enterprise are batched in a fee aggregator contract, then sent to uniswap for conversion, then to the reserve and node operators.What happens now is basically they will auction off the batched non-link fees for a bidder starting at their fee conditions, so for example:>100 ETH batched -> auctioned for 1:225 Link via pricefeed lookup -> anyone who wants to trade in that link gets the eth otherwise -> 1:224 Link is now the ratio. Arbitrage bots can make profit here depending on spread of the link asset by auctioning in. otherwise -> 1:223 ration and henceforthquite smart, would be interesting if the auction sale is batched too or if they split it on different stuff. Also apparently its gonna be on different payment chains and different AMMs (not only uniswap) for enhanced liquidity and market access
>>61943604I found the info in your last sentence interesting. Definitely a big step up in the ifnrastructure.Regarding the shift to dutch auction, is that necessarily an improvement?Lastly, I just wish they'd release staking v1.0 already. Since the network only seems to have enough revenue for $1mm/week in reserve buy backs, I'm concerned about their ability to fund future staking iterations.
>>61943419None of this will matter for the next few decades. Chainlink vision is for hyper IoT-fied national infrastructure. This shit does not fucking matter. Tokens back and forth. Tokens BACK and FORTH.
>>61943697>Regarding the shift to dutch auction, is that necessarily an improvement?it reduces MEV attacks on the conversion step since its not a broadcasted plain swap, ie timing exploitsIt also pushes speculation risk in terms of price towards the bots/protocols trying to arbitrage the spread, and keeps it competitive since bids are blinds unless resolved, ie the auction gets resolved the instant someone buys the link.Normally, dutch auction style is used to disincentivize people from artificially inflating the price since you can't put in shill bets but I'm not actually sure if that benefit is there here, since higher bids would mean more fees? someone smarter or from chainlink could prob explain>Since the network only seems to have enough revenue for $1mm/week in reserve buy backs, I'm concerned about their ability to fund future staking iterations.Most of it is tightly connected to a subsequent staking version I reckon. Staking right now from a technical standpoint is a "joke" in the sense that its only securing eth pricefeeds. Its a bit of an chicken-egg situation imo but I'm quite sure they know what they're doing. If anything, Chainlink Labs thankfully isnt stupid
>>61943734>someone buys the link.non-link fees*
>>61943734Stop regurgitating docs. Think for yourself. Sell the token.
>>61943737lmao
>>61943748Suit yourself
>>61943708Good point. Yeah it doesn't matter until we have more assets onchain, globally. I remember CLL posting some bar charts a few years ago showing their "tokenized asset value" over time - I wonder how reality is faring compared to their predictions. Would love to see an updated chart. Are we ahead or behind on projected pnchain value?>>61943734I agree, definitely connected to future staking. Again though, way too many concerns on future staking - the hypothesized dependence on the CLARITY Act is one of them. I'd love to see the Chainlink Network fulfil its original vision of being decentralized neutral architecture but if it depends on US laws then it raises some eyebrows. Being beholden to US laws means they may even need somw dumb shit like KYC/whitelisting to participate in staking (no one seems to suspect this except me though, purely my own theory).Fuck man, I just want my bags to pump. Been holding since 2022.
