►
From YouTube: NEAR EVM Working Group Update [2021-01-08]
Description
Follow the latest from NEAR Protocol on,
Website: https://nearprotocol.com/
Discord: https://near.ai/discord
Medium: https://near.ai/medium
Twitter: https://near.ai/twitter
GitHub: https://near.ai/github
#WhiteboardSeries #Blockchain #FutureIsNEAR
A
A
B
I'm
not
seeing
what
I'm
expecting
on
the
ui
like
it
looks
like
it's
already
live.
B
A
Okay,
you
would
need
to
make
me
the
host.
B
C
C
A
C
D
C
A
Screen
so
we
have
in
the
discussions,
we
have
the
agenda,
but
we
need
to
wait
for
ilya
hillia
to
join,
and
I
maybe
you
john,
is
not
joining
this.
A
A
C
C
A
Will
you
be,
will
you
be
joining
us
still
every
every
week
or
just
hoping
in
today.
C
Probably
not
every
week,
it's
if
I
have
done
something
that
we
gotta
join
otherwise
like.
If
I
didn't
do
anything
that
way,
I'll
skip.
A
Okay,
well,
while
we
have
you,
would
you
have
some
time
next
monday
to
join
our
okr.
C
A
I
think
so.
Okay,
I
think,
there's
a
two
two
meetings
on
monday
about
okay,
ours,
the
one
might
be
too
early
only
for
you,
but
if
you,
if
you
join
the
team
sync,
that
should
be
a
reasonable
time
line-up
of
your
time,
okay
highlight
so
I
think
we
have.
A
We
have
everybody
and
we
can
get
it
going.
So,
yes,
we
are
already
live
on
on
youtube
and
hello,
everybody.
This
is
the
evm
working
groups
weekly
public
sync,
and
this
is
the
first
one
now
in
three
weeks
for
the
holidays.
Let
me
share
my
screen
here
and
you
can
find
our
discussions
in
the
near
core
repository.
A
We
keep
the
meeting
agenda
and
the
meeting
notes
there
and
we
have
the
youtube
youtube
link
there
as
well.
In
case
you
want,
somebody
wants
to
share
it
to
others,
so
the
agenda
for
today
I
suggest,
is
the
following:
we
let's
discuss
the
current
goal,
especially
good
after
the
long
holidays,
and
do
the
weekly
updates
fairly
quickly.
A
I
don't
think
anybody
has
anything
significant
to
report
and
then
let's,
let's
talk
about
what
we're
going
to
do
in
the
next
few
weeks,
including
importantly,
there's
been
some
good
work
from
from
ilia
on
raw
ethereum
transaction
relay
support,
and
we
have
a
big
discussion
about
the
native
evm
token
that
we
need
to
move
along.
A
D
I
guess
I
I'll
be
curious
to
hear
what's
the
status
of
the
the
meta
transaction
really
as
well.
Okay,.
A
Okay,
good,
so,
let's
get
going,
the
the
current
goal
of
our
development
is
towards
the
phase
two,
which
is
the
destination
delivery,
and
we.
A
Hold
on
I'm
missing
something
here
for
my
notes:
yeah
and
the
agenda
for
the
next
couple
of
weeks
is
to
is
to
align
all
the
stakeholders
internally
and
with
input
from
external
stakeholders
potential
stakeholders
on
how
our
architecture
should
look
for
the
evm.
We
still
have
some
some
questions
in
that
regard.
A
A
But
let's
touch
on
it
a
little
bit
today.
There
are
other
questions
that
ilya
and
alex,
and
I
have
been
discussing
over
the
holidays,
some
of
those
concerned,
the
long-term
outlook.
How
would
we
unify
contract
storage
so
that
we
don't
have
a
separate
mechanism
inside
the
evm
and
and
the
native
native
runtime
ilya?
What
was
your
preferred
term
for
the
native
runtime?
Was
it
base
runtime.
A
Okay,
okay,
I'll
call
it
that
then
yeah
so
right
now
we
we
store
corner
storage
is
entirely
separated
between
between
the
two
and
the
evm
is
like
a
black
black
box,
and
we
should
maybe
open
up
this
box
a
little
bit
going
forward.
A
There's
also
also
questions
about
the
account
model
and
and
ultimately,
what
level
of
visibility
ethereum
use
should
be
afforded
in
terms
of
our
wallet
interfaces
and
the
like.
So
we
can,
we
can
come
back
to
those
those
things
later
so
for
a
weekly
weekly
update,
alexis
is
out
of
the
office
given
the
holidays,
author
of
holidays,
but
I'll
give
you
this
update.
So,
as
I
mentioned,
with
elianmi
he's
been
working
on
sketching
out
a
lot
of
the
user
scenarios.
Use
use.
Cases
for
the
evm
is
working
on
on
diagramming
diagramming.
C
A
This
discussion
on
the
forum
this
week
on,
on
the
native
token,
he's
also
set
up
for
next
week.
He
set
up
a
bridge
indian
team
cross
sim
call,
because
we
have
a
lot
of
questions
that
concern
both
teams.
I
think
that's
sometime
later
monday,
on
on
on.
C
A
A
C
Yeah,
I'm
mostly
just
addressing
comments
from
using
and
adding
comments
in
in
the
meta
transaction
passing.
A
A
A
Eugene
yeah,
we
don't
have
him
today.
I
think
it's
a
little
early
in
san
francisco.
C
No,
I
I
I
finally
joined
okay.
A
A
C
Ahead
yeah,
I
basically
just
reviewed
a
bunch
of
pr's,
but
that's
it
didn't
spend
as
much
time.
A
I
know
frank,
frank,
had
personal
matters
this
week,
so
nothing
to
report.
I
believe
that's
correct,
yeah,
okay,
so
resume
next
week
on
that
ilia.
Would
you
like
to
a
little
bit
speak
about
the
work
you
did
on
the
road
transactions
report.
D
Yeah
so
I
mean
high
level
pretty
much
been
testing
out
a
little
bit
how
to
deploy
some
contracts,
and
so
some
of
the
contract
deployment
uses
hd
wallet
on
the
like,
on
the
travel
side,
for
example,
for
a
predictable
key
like
pretty
much
for
signing
transactions
as
a
specific
key.
So
instead
of
generating
a
new
one
and
so
that
kind
of
span
out
into
like
that,
we
need
you
know
to
handle
a
already
signed
transactions,
and
so
so
we
have
this
rpc
proxy.
D
That
is
pretty
much
just
runs
web
3
provider
and
like
takes
soldier,
json
requests
and
just
calls
rpc
provider
with
them,
and
so
we
did
not
have
our
pc
provider
handling
that.
So
I
added
handle
handling
for
that
there,
which
required
actually
adding
in
your
core
ability
to
process
a
kind
of
completely
signed
heating
transaction.
D
It
works
pretty
much
the
same
way
as
metacall.
So
it's
a
signed
transaction
exceeding
transaction
from
signature.
You
can
infer
the
signer
the
address
who
signed
it,
and
then
we
have
you
know
the
like
who
who
it's
targeted
to
what
data
was
and
how
much
value
was
assigned
and
the
chain
id
as
well
right,
yeah
and
so
chain
id
comes
from
the
signature
as
well:
yeah,
yeah
and
so
and,
like
actually
one
caveat,
is
that
ethereum
does
not
require
chain
id
to
be
there
right
so
chain
id.
Is
there
only
in
some
transactions?
D
So
it's
all
right
like
and
yeah.
So
this
is
so
so
pr
is
there
I'm
still
testing
some
things,
but
so
far
it
works.
I
have.
I
have
deployed
that
actual
actual
contract
into
the
into
betternet
that
I
was
where
it
started
from
right.
D
This
is
both
pr's
to
the
near
core
and
to
website
provider.
A
Right
and
and
I've
reviewed
both
this
this
one
I
had
to
rebase
yesterday.
It
was
a
difficult
release
because
we
had
the
uvm
phase,
2
branch,
so
that
bit
doesn't
dance
on
that
one.
But
I
believe
I
I've
correctly
replaced
it
and
it
does
build.
So
if
you.
D
Yeah-
and
I
I
also
saw
you
had
like
a
couple
comments,
so
I'm
gonna
address
them
and
we
can
if
everything
else,
looks
correct.
We
can
submit.
A
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
it's
good
to
merge,
even
as
is
because
you
know
this,
this
comment
is
about
something
that
was
already
pre-existing
in
the
code.
It's
not
about
your
pr.
I.
D
A
D
So
actually
the
question
is
like
yeah:
when
are
we
gonna
hard
fork
better
net?
This
new
version?
Do
we
have.
C
A
In
other
words,
you
you
genuinely
you
you
both
think
we
should
deploy,
depend
on
it
as
soon
as
possible,
which.
C
A
All
right
anything
else
here
from
you.
A
Okay,
mike.
B
Yeah,
so
it's
mostly
been
covering
as
much
as
basically
everything
that
I
understand
about
how
people
can
use
the
evm
I'm
putting
into
the
majority
is
now
in
documentation
and
in
separate
sections.
I
think,
there's
like
seven
or
eight
different
sections
about
you
know
testing.
B
You
know
how
to
use
truffle,
how
to
use
web3
provider
how
to
do
the
most
basic,
simple
script,
how
near
cli
can
interact
with
it
and
then
the
blog
post
highlights
these
different
sections
and
kind
of
gives
like
a
teaser
and
just
gives
an
update
on
where
things
are
at,
because
I
think
our
last
blog
post
was
from
almost
a
year
ago
and
then
also
had
been
talking
a
little
bit
to,
I
guess
the
infrastructure
team.
B
I
I
think
that
we
don't
have
the
same
kind
of
alerts
going
on,
and
so
there
were
some
timeouts
on
beta
net.
I
think,
because
you
know
it
wasn't
as
important
until
recently,
so
we're
getting
those
in
tip-top
shape
so
that
when
we
sort
of
invite
the
community
to
start
using
the
evm
on
beta
net,
things
will
work
as
expected.
B
I
think
that
that
is
like
the
the
final
push
for
me,
I'm
still
kind
of
wrapping
my
head
around
what
the
rpc
proxy
means
in
terms
of
like
priorities
and
where
it's
at
and
you
know,
should
we
be
targeting
hard
hat
for
instance,
or
should
we
just
kind
of
be
expecting
that
people
can
point
most
things
to
the
to
the
rpc
proxy?
Although
I
see
there's
a
lot
of
routes
that
are
not
not
done
yet,
so
I'm
I'm
kind
of
learning
about
that
and
how
to
advise
folks
who
want
to
start
using
this.
A
Yeah
those
are
good
questions
and
I
guess
we
can.
We
can
segue
into
the
discussion
from
that.
I
think
it's
great.
We
have
a
provider
we
can
use
both
in
the
rpc
proxy
as
well
as
people
can
pull
it
into
their
front-end
code.
So
so
that's
a
good
good
job
on
that.
A
A
So
this
is
something
we
should
probably
discuss,
but,
okay,
so
so
first,
let
me
let
me
note
that
so
I
already
mentioned
that
team
organization
changing
a
little
bit.
So
it's
nice
to
have
bo
here,
but
bo
is
pulled
away
mike.
You
do
you
know
already
how
you
will
be
pulled
away,
to
which
extent.
B
A
Given
that
we're
defining
the
evm
okrs
on
monday,
if
there's
any
input,
you
would
have
that
that
would
be
they'll
be
already
very
good
and
other
than
that.
The
team
organization
is
is
well
understaffed
at
the
moment,
which
means
that
there's
pretty
active
recruitment
going
on,
and
I
would
also
encourage
everybody
everybody
to
think
of
any
friends,
colleagues,
former
colleagues
that
they
they
know
about
who
we
might
approach
and
send
all
of
that
in
my
direction.
C
A
Recruitment
efforts
in
january,
given
that
we
have,
we
have
something
we
want
to
ship
this
call
okay,
so
I'll
I'll
talk
to
you
guys,
one
on
one
on
on
other
other
questions
about
the
team
organization.
Let's
go
to
the
discussion
so
ilya.
D
D
D
Does
everything
and
and
will
continue
doing
everything
that
that
city
provider
do
does
so
like
all
the
routes
that
are
not
implemented
as
the
routes
that
don't
implement
it
if
they
provide
in
the
first
place
right
and
the
the
missing
pieces
in
the
proxy
are
mostly
around
actual,
like
key
management
right
like
making
sure
that,
like
you,
you
can
start
it
in
kind
of
read-only
mode,
or
you
can
start
it
in
like
in
you
know
in
in
the
like
right
now
pretty
much
it's
kind
of
a
debug
mode
right
where
you
know
it
can
sign,
it
will
sign
whatever
you
give
it,
which
is
obviously
not
always
good.
D
So
this
is
where
we
should
have
this
logic
of
like
relaying
logic
kind
of
there,
which
allows
to
calculate
yeah.
If
you
want
to.
If
you
want
to
do
the,
if
you
want
to
relate
this
or
not,
and
so
be
able
to
configure
a
proxy
with
that.
A
Okay,
meanwhile,
while
we
were
talking,
I
made
a
bit
of
oops
wrong
wrong,
keystroke
and
watch
the
notes
I'll
have
to
reconstruct
them
from
the
video
in
any
case.
Okay,
so
that's
that's
clear
and
are
you
planning
to
to
do
that
yourself
for
or
should
I
might
go
ahead
and
do
that.
D
I
I
can
take
a
look
as
I'm
kind
of
looking
through
this.
I
guess
like
I,
if
you
guys,
can
talk
me
through
or
and
kind
of
update
on
what
some
meta
tx
relay
status.
Just
I
know.
A
A
Yeah
yeah
so
mike
mike,
can
you
talk
on
that?
I
also
talked
with
julia
about
potentially
making
a
screencast
on
that.
Did
you
did
you
have
a
chance
to
do
that?
Definitely.
B
No,
I
I
still
owe
you
that
that
screencast,
so
the
state
of
affairs
on
the
meta
transactions
on
that
are
kind
of
the
same
as
they've
been
for
a
while,
which
is
bare
bones
in
terms
of
you,
can
pop
up
metamask,
do
a
signed,
typed
message,
eip712
and
then
send
that,
to
you
know
kind
of
the
old
version
of
the
the
relayer,
and
that
could
basically
say
here's
the
message:
here's
the
signature.
B
We
can
recover
this,
so
so
that
that
was
it.
And
then
at
that
point
I
I
think
I
was
not
quite
sure
how
to
put
that
into
the
actual
like
near
core
or
what
to
send
and
how,
to
you
know,
package
the
bytes
so
that
nothing
has
really
changed
along
that,
and
it
seems
like
just
the
eip712
kind
of
logic,
which
is
essentially
just
importing.
Some
libraries
is
all
that
we
would
really
need
to
add
to
the
rpc
proxy.
B
A
Okay,
well,
I
was
also
getting
getting
set
up
with
the
full
flow
for
the
meta
meta
transactions
a
few
weeks
back,
but
I
had
I
run
into
some
trouble.
I
didn't
have
a
chance
to
to
redo
the
flow
ilia
yet
so
I
I
don't
remember
what
the
problem
was.
I
will
try
to
do
that.
Soonest.
A
Is
there
anything
else
that
you
you
would
want
to
ask
on
on
that
front
from
mike?
While
we
have
him
on
the
call.
D
Well,
I
think
that
one
one
side
was,
if,
if
you,
you
thought
through
the
flow
on
how
like
front
end,
would
be
pulling
for
the
like
how
front-end
would
be
checking
with
their
layer
like
what
price
would
relay
or
pretty
much
be
okay
with,
because
I
think
like
when,
when
for
this,
like
rock
calls
it.
It
also
needs
that,
because,
like
pretty
pretty
much
the
rock
hall
it
it,
it
has
a
gas
price
and
gas
amount.
D
But
this
is
really
like
it's
not
near
as
gas
price
customer
at
least
right
now,
so
we're
going
to
be,
but
like
we,
the
plan
is
to
deduct
that
from
this
user's
balance
and
put
it
to
the
layers
balance.
So
relay
needs
to
approve
that
it's
okay
with
you
know,
was
being
paid.
This
much.
A
Now
on
that,
on
that
front,
something
interesting
that
alex
proposed
now
this,
this
assumes
that
let's
say
we
were
actually
going
to
use
a
base,
talk
and
native
token
of
f,
but
suppose
we
did
that
then
in
in
that
case
it
would
be
a
straightforward
extension
of
your
of
your
current
work
with
the
raw
transactions
that
we
would.
We
would
add
one
more
field
to
the
transaction
that
is
related,
and
that
would
be
the
evm
address,
as
in
the
the
public
key.
D
Yeah,
so
we
don't
need
that,
because
who's
paid
is
the
person
who
sent
the
transaction
in
the
first
place,
so
we
already
have
the
layers
id,
so
we
don't
need
to
extend
it
the
for
for
our
transaction.
It
even
presumably
works.
If
we
so
the
there
is
rpc
point
which
is
gas
price,
so
you
can
just
re.
You
ask
this
proxy
layer
for
the
gas
price
and
it
should
just
give
you
the
price
that
it's
okay
with
kind
of
pain,
but
it's
still
it's
still.
D
It's
still
like
the
amount,
but
but
for
meta
calls
right.
Basically,
we
need
this
flow
as
well,
because,
like
metacalls,
don't
have
this
flow.
Naturally
right.
B
So,
okay,
I
guess
maybe
my
question
for
me
is
like
how
like
mvp.
Are
we
going
now
because,
when
you
say
like
you're,
asking
the
proxy
rpc
to
say,
hey,
it's
only
worth
my
time.
If
you
pay
me
this
much
that
that
sounds
like
we're
kind
of
like
having
a
an
mvp
version
where
it's
like
one
one
relayer
basically,
is
that
how
we're
kind
of
focusing
on
now
before
sort
of
saying,
hey
the
to
the
community
of
relayers?
B
I
am
willing
to
pay
this.
That
was
kind
of
what
I
was
imagining
to
be
like
the
ultimate
goal.
Am
I
tracking
this
correctly
or
no.
A
A
So
alex's
notion
was
that
we
would
have
a
ecosystem
of
relayers
who
could
offer
something
like
a
market
price
for
gases
and
they
can
set
the
gas
limits
we
we
are
not
going
to.
A
We
are
not
going
to
be
interested
to
relay
transactions
unless
you,
you
know,
meet
this
criteria
and
from
that
would
emerge,
emerge
some
kind
of
market
rate
and
on
a
on
the
client
side,
when
you
relay
transactions
through
whatever
library
you
could
do
the
same
as
gas
station
network
clients
do,
which
is
that
if
a
relayer
rejects
your
transaction
for
any
reason,
you
can
retry
the
next
one
and
there
can
be
some
sort
of
prioritization
based
on
the
arbitrary
criteria,
including
quality
of
service
and
post,
ultimately
for
for
selecting
which
ones
to
contact.
A
First
really.
Does
that
make
sense
to
you.
A
D
B
D
Ask
gas
station
it
tells
you
what's
the
current
market
price,
so
you
need
that
piece
somewhere
and
like
if
nothing
else
it's
like
relayers
should
expose
it.
So
you
can
actually
ask
them
like
what's
their
price
yeah,
because,
like
gas
station
gives
you
the
network
price,
which
we
also
have
right,
and
so
one
option
is
just
like
you
literally,
you
literally
ask:
what's
the
current
near
gas
price
and
you
submit
with
that,
and
then
you
retry,
it
was
like
a
little
bit
high,
paying
a
little
bit
higher
and
stuff
like
this.
D
But
if
you
I
mean
but
like
because
you're
asking
anyone
anyway
is
a
relay
right,
it
can
tell
you
like
the
the
problem
here
is
like
the
relayer
can
tell
you
whatever
they
want
right.
It's
also
the
that's
why
you
need
a
lot
of
them
that
you
you
you
kind
of
wanna.
You
want
your
choice
to
find
the
the
best
one
and
have
like
competing
dynamics.
A
Yeah
and
of
course
we
have
questions
on
that
that
let's
say
that
the
layer
accepts
the
transaction,
but
then
it
actually
never
submits
it
to
the
network.
It
drops
it
on
the
floor.
We
have
some
questions
around
that
I
mean
those
are.
We
have
some
prior
example
how
those
are
sold
on
the
gas
station
network,
but
they
are
not
necessarily
comprehensively
solved
or
even
credibly,
so
yeah.
We
have
something
to
do
on
that.
A
But
but
in
any
case
are
we
are
we
aligned
that
it's?
We
would
like
to
see
something
like
an
ecosystem
of
relayers,
who
would
in
some
sense
compete
with
each
other
to
relay
transactions.
D
So
I
mean
in
general,
yes,
but
I
also
like
for
for
definitely
for
mvp.
I
would
I
would
target
similar
approach
to
what
we
have
right
now
as
rpcs
is
like.
We
want
a
lot
of
rpc
providers,
but
like
there
should
be
also
one
that
kind
of
you
know
semi
reasonable
that
people,
just
you
know,
apply
intervals
and
yeah
like
it's
the
same
as
a
fewer
right.
You
just
you
know.
Yes,
there
is
other
options.
You
can
also
run
your
own.
You
can,
you
know.
A
Like
well
well
right,
right
now,
concretely,
the
first
rpc
proxy
endpoint
is
running
on
my
vps
in
amsterdam.
A
I'll
I'll
upgrade
it
to
the
latest
code,
soon
your
code
and
yeah,
maybe
maybe
we
can
think
of
making
something
like
that
public
or
semi-public,
might
have
to
upgrade
my
vps
good
problem
to
have
yeah.
D
A
D
A
Yeah
sure
just
boost
up
in
it
for
a
moment.
Okay,
so
so
we
have
a.
We
have
some
more
work
to
do
on
on
on
the
conceptual
model
there,
but
maybe
we
know
the
direction
we're
going
in
as
in
indeed
there
would
be
some
set
of
relayers
the
end
developer
or
the
library
writer
would
include
some
logic
for
selecting
the
relay.
A
They
would
want
to
talk
to
unless
it's
manually,
configured
and
and
maybe
having
some
some
sort
of
retry
logic,
ultimately
and
and
then
the
the
process
is
that
it's
one
way
or
another.
It's
indeed
wrapped.
A
And-
and
we
will
handle
handle
it,
we
will
handle
even
the
raw
transactions
given
given
the
support
you've
added
in
the
last
weeks.
A
D
A
Did
did
that
work
out?
Okay,
as
in
is
metamask,
giving
your
neros.
D
And
I
mean
I
think
I
handled
some,
but
I
need
to
double
check
I'll
update
on
that.
B
Real
quick,
too,
I
posted
in
discord
like
something
that
I
saw
when
trying
to
fiddle
with
the
pet
shop
and
and
do
that,
and
it
seemed
to
be
like
some
gas
stuff.
It
couldn't
determine
the
balance
and.
A
A
Then
we
have
let's,
let's
deal
with
the
blog
post
question.
So
so
my
cue,
let's
see
if
I
have
I
don't-
have
the
link
here
on
my
my
demo-
account.
A
Yeah
evm
content,
okay,
568
and
you
have
a
whole
bunch
of
new
tutorials
here
or
I
guess
it's
kind
of
mixed
tutorial
and
reference
books.
A
B
B
A
And,
given
that
the
the
blog
post
itself
is,
I
guess,
cut
down
to
size
quite
a
lot.
B
Yep
there's
a
lot
of
links,
giving
a
basic
description
and,
in
the
blog
post,
that
links
to
these
okay.
B
I
would
like
to
do
that.
I
think
we
can
do
a
final
pass.
I've
started
it
so
so
much
that
I
probably
needed
some
a
final.
You
know
review,
but
that
would
be
they'd
be
great
to
let
our
you
know.
I'm
excited
to
invite
our
community
in
so
I'd
love
to
publish
that.
A
Okay,
any
any
objections
from
you
reviewed
it
as
well.
D
A
All
right,
yeah,
let's
let's
get
that
out
and
hopefully
we
actually
get
some
people
feeding
on
it.
Okay
and
then
we
have
the
the
contentious
topic.
The
potential
conditions
of
the.
A
We
already
have
a
long
discussion
going
here
on
the
forum
with
many
many
viewpoints.
Does
everybody
know
what
this
is
so
or
should
we
introduce
the
subject
a
little
bit
because
everybody
knows
okay,
so
yeah
right
now
we're
using
new
exclusively
for
for
being
well.
A
On
the
evm,
that's
what
it
comes
down
to
right
and
there
is
a
proposal
that
perhaps
it
will
make
sense
from
a
business
perspective
from
from
an
end
user
perspective,
that
it
could
be
f
and
that
is
technically
complex
compared
to
near,
but
it
will
have
some
some
benefits
to
it,
and
alex
has
tried
to
summarize
here
some
of
the
money
as
well.
A
Does
anybody
have
anything
new
to
add
on
this
new
thoughts?
I'm
sure
we
deal
with
this
topic.
A
I
understand
that
you
had
you
had
come
closer
to
the
sort
of
the
middle
of
the
fence
on
this,
as
in
you
can
see
both
sides
yeah.
D
Yeah,
like
just
to
clarify
the
comp,
the
the
complexity
of
the
implementation,
is
actually
not
that
big.
The
the
only
difference
is
that,
instead
of
so
right
now,
when
we
have
deposit
and
withdraw,
we
are
making
a
promise
call
with
the
transfer
action
and
actually
instead,
we'll
need
to
have
a
per
evm
parameter,
which
says
which
token
we
want
to
use
and
then
the
promises
will
be
the
calling
transfer
or
transfer
from
for
the.
D
For
that
token,
so
it's
pretty
much
transitioning
from
using,
like
the
base
token
of
like
our
kind
of
base
runtime
to
using
any
token
and
then
any
any
any
step
like
talking
standard
pretty
much
and
then
so.
What?
What
like?
The
kind
of
the
main
issues
here
is
mostly
just
our
dependency
on
the
token
standard
on
the
protocol
level,
yeah.
A
Yeah,
which
is
which
is
certainly
a
concern
well,
this
is
this
is
probably
one
of
those
cases
where
we
we
would
really
benefit.
If
we
had,
let's
say
somebody
outside
of
the
core
team.
Also
so
far,
we
don't
seem
to
have
any
anybody
from
the
community.
D
Yeah,
I
would,
I
would
source
some
opinions
from
people,
so
I
mean
igor
from
zero
pool
mentioned
that,
like
everybody
else,
is
using
their
own
token,
but
I
I
would,
I
would
actually
like
it
it's
worth
going
out,
yeah
and
and
sourcing
some
folks
who
are
like
ethereum
kind
of
builders
currently
and
seeing
what
are
their
kind
of
thoughts
on
this
yeah.
I
would
also.
A
I
would
also
not
begin
from
the
point
of
view
of
what
everybody
else
is
doing
as
in
sure
there's
a
lot
of
evm
compatible
chains,
but
none
of
them
are
used
yeah.
None
of
them
are
particularly
credible.
So
what
what
would
set
us
apart?
Maybe
something
like
this
and.
C
D
Yeah,
so
medical
can
already
can
charge
in
any
any
token
the.
So.
The
difference
mostly
is
twofold:
one
is:
what's
a
raw
transaction
calls
would
be
charging
because
they're
charging
the
base
token
and
the
second
one
is
what
is
like.
What
is
actually
that
base
token
that
is
inside
the
contracts?
That's
used
right
so
like
if
you
launch
a
uniswap
right
on
on
inside
the
vm
right,
the
base
token
is
what
they
use
in
the
middle,
and
so
that
will
define,
like
you
know,
which
pairs
it
will
be.
D
I
think
the
so
right
now
like
I
did
some
experiments
with
like
matic,
for
example,
and
even
though
you
can
enter
the
token
handle
like
matic
token,
but
the
meta
mask,
for
example,
still
shows
you.
The
the
ethereum
logo
for,
for
the
matic
token
right
so
like
in
general,
support
is
not
like
super
robust
right.
D
A
This
is
this
is
this
is
one
of
the
big
concerns
for
in
terms
of
the
the
developer
experience
that
most
most
depths,
even
if
they
have
localization,
for
example,
say
that
they're
available
in
20
languages?
A
So
it's
it's,
not
a
it's,
not
a
trivial
thing
for
somebody
to
change
an
application
to
has
such
a
hard-coded
assumption,
if
you
just
pull
the
rug
under
them
and
swap
that
to
some
something
else,
then
they're
gonna
have
to
rework
a
large
part
of
the
application,
which
is
not
a
it's,
not
a
great
developer
experience.
C
C
I
need
to
think
how
to
get
corrupt
is
talking
first
and
near
side
to
to
deal
with,
like,
let's
say,
uni
swap
on
edm
side,
because
if
I
don't
have
native
like
I
don't
have
wrapped
is
then
in
order
for
me
to
start
using
uni
swap
on
evm.
I
need
to
first
acquire
wrap
this
somewhere,
because
it
also
makes
it
complicated
on
wait.
D
D
D
D
There's
no
real
difference
right,
I
mean
like
you,
you
either
way
when
let's
say
you
want
to
exchange
near
for
for
die
right
and
you
want
to
use
uni
swap
so
I
mean
there's
difference.
D
Definitely
that
that
unit
that
uni
swap
has
like
near
diaper
or
not,
but
there's
no
difference
between
saying
I
want
to
exchange
one
token
to
another.
Like
you
know,
balancer,
for
example,
will
just
do
it
for
you
like
it
will
just
find
the
pools
that
will
exchange
these
two
tokens.
It
doesn't
matter
what
like
base
talking
and
you're
still
paying
fees
and
near
like
the
near
wallet,
still
works.
C
No,
I
understand
I
I
mean
I
don't
understand
how
non-ethereum
users
can
use
edm
like
if
I
don't
have
ethereum
and
I
have
found
linear
you.
D
C
D
C
D
A
C
A
Think
where
the
bridge
would
come
in,
but
the
first
question
I
would
ask
youtuan
is
that-
and
this
is
important
for
our
user
stories,
which
users
did
you
have
in
mind?
Who
would
want
to
use
the
evm
but
are
not
f1
users,
because
we
are
not
we're
not
taking
into
account
anybody
like
that
in
our
user
stories
right
now,
and
if
there
is
somebody
it
looks
like.
D
D
D
C
Is
integration
of
like
native
contracts?
This
idiom,
yes,
they
will
need
to
operate
on.
Azeroth
is
on
near
side
or
drop
near,
which
makes
it
all
calls
that
go
to
edm
if
they
don't
have
a
native
balance
within
ibm,
which
is
probably
weird
but
we'll
have
to
go
through
the
token
standard.
First,
like
talking
contract
on
native
side,
that
we'll
call
a
vm
for
conversion
and
later
executing
versus.
If
you
have
attached
balance
in
native
near
then
they
can
natively
call
evm
and
start
interacting
with
uniso
potential.
D
So
this
part
was
specifically
union,
swap,
I
agree
yeah,
so
uniswap
is
where,
if
you
want
to
exchange
near
for
something-
and
you
want
to
use
it,
it
is
easier
if
nearest
base
token
every
single
other
app
which
are
like
balancer
lending,
apps,
etc.
None
of
them
actually
using
message
value
for
acceptance,
so
you
will
need
to
wrap
your
stuff
first
anyway,
right
like
balancer,
you
know,
uses
wrap
teeth
and
like
dydx
using
wrappies,
you
know
all
of
the
people
using
wrap
teeth
as
because
they
don't
want
to
write.
A
Yeah
and
actually
actually,
we
might
perhaps
just
state
that
rabdith
is
more
important
for
d5
than
is.
D
Itself,
yeah,
I
mean
my
point
is
like
that,
if
you,
if
you
have
near
like,
if
you
have
an
application
in
base
runtime,
that's
calling
application
inside
evm
for
the
most
part,
you
will
need
to
wrap
your
near
into
a
erc20
on
inside
evm
to
be
actually
to
use
it
anyway.
So
I
think
like
making
that,
like
a
standard
thing
is
actually
probably
you
know.
A
Makes
sense
well
and
also
also
from
the
point
of
view
of
what
we
would,
what
we
would
want.
Just
if
you
take
a
step
back
from
the
details
and
think
about
somebody
who's
as
developer
as
user,
we
would
we
would
want.
I
think
that
they
could
bridge
their
their,
in
particular
s,
but
of
course,
other
tokens
too.
A
They
could
bridge
them
easily
across
f1
our
evm
and
our
base
base
run
time
as
in
maybe
we
are
calling
it
nf
on
the
base,
runtime
ef
on
the
evm,
and
then
you
have
sm
practice
on
f1.
But
but
in
any
case,
we
would
want
to
write
that
when
people
have
one
f
in
in
one
of
these
realms
they
will.
They
would
feel
confident
that
they
have
one
f
and
that
they
can
bridge
it
to,
for
example,
back
to
f1
at
any
time
and.
C
C
To
have
yeah.
A
Wrap
this
yeah,
it's
a
separate
question,
but
in
any
case
I
think
that's
a
starting
point
for
for
how
a
user
would
hope
that
all
of
this
would
work
and
then
once
you
once,
you
have
the
ability
to
bridge,
especially
if
very
easily
move
it
around
in
this
way.
Of
course,
I
know
right
now.
A
We
have
delays
in
the
bridging
in
some
directions,
but
assuming
those
can
be
solved,
then,
then,
from
the
user's
perspective,
it
might
make
sense
that,
for
example,
let's
say
in
in
in
metamask
I
I
go
to
I
go
to
the
bridge
on
f1
I
have
my
metamask
connected.
I
get
an
address
to
send
to
which
is
going
to
magically
credit,
the
the
same
amount
of
f
I
sent
to
to
the
same
address
on
the
ebn
side
and,
and
that
all
happens,
pretty
quick.
A
Then
that's
a
pretty
nice
user
experience
that,
even
even
if
somebody
was
changing,
you
know
in
metamaster
the
network
the
same
way
as
the
change
between
test
net
and
mainnet.
You
could
just
see
that,
ultimately,
what
it
comes
down
to
is
that
you
know
oneness
disappeared
from
from
this
balance.
Here
I
changed
to
that
network
whoa.
I
got
one
nest
there.
That
would
be
great
right.
I
mean
that's
what
I
would
expect.
As
a
user.
C
C
On
the
contract
level,
we'll
first
lock
all
the
contract
side,
apis
such
as
like
a
json
host
methods
and
stuff
like
this.
Even
so,
we
can
upgrade
it.
We
cannot
stop
supporting
old
versions
ever
because
there's
going
to
be
applications
built
on
top
of
them.
So
but
it's
true
about
any
standard
yeah,
that's
why
we
don't
link
them
right
now
at
all
to
native
implementation.
So
only
one
way
contracts
are
depending
on
protocol,
not
not
other
way.
A
Yeah
now
you
can,
I
think
I
think,
I'm
perfectly
with
you
on
on
how
technically
burdensome
and
complex
and
perhaps
risky
in
some
regard.
All
of
this
is
I'm
just
starting
from
the
user's
point
of
view
that
this
is
what
one
would
like
to
see.
Maybe
maybe
there
are
constraints
like
this
that
prevent
us
from
building
it,
but
at
least
it's
a
good
idea
to
try
to
start
what
what
we
would
like
to
see
and
then,
if
we
can't
do
it,
we
can't
do
it
or
we
shouldn't
do
it.
C
It
seems
I
I
still
don't
have
full
benefits.
I
understand
the
like
the
unislope
use
case
that
it
will
display
it
correctly
without
changes
at
the
same
time,
working
with
tools
is
probably
reasonable
and
it
will
benefit
from,
like
all
other
chains,
to
to
properly
display
their
native
tokens.
Instead
of
like
saying,
we
should
change
the
token.
A
Well,
that's
that's
true,
but
that's
that's
the
now
pretty
large
problem,
as
in
you
know,
there's
in
in-apps
out
there
that
need
to
be
changed.
It
would
be
good
if
they
were
changed.
No.
C
D
So
so
eugene,
I
guess
one
question
that
I
have,
which
is
so
right
now
evm
has
is
done
as
like.
A
full
kind
of
evm
contract
is
pre-compiled,
and
so
one
one
option
was
actually
leave
as
a
pre-compile.
D
Only
the
bytecode
execution
side
and
and
leave
also
like
glue
code
that
we
have
on
a
still
on
the
contract
side,
so
so
kind
of
like
pretty
much
exposed.
Just
like
you
know,
exact
evm,
bytecode
kind
of
function
inside
vasom,
runtime
and
then
so
have
a
assembly
contract
which
all
the
glue
code
that
calls
this
function.
C
C
C
The
reason
for
this
is
if,
in
the
future,
we
want
to
enable
native
transactions
on
evm
side
where
the
transaction
doesn't
go
through
signed
near
transaction,
but
just
can
length
straight
to
evm
weak
without
this
native
or
without
this
country,
and
a
wrapper,
because
we
will
be
able
to
verify
a
certain
transaction
similar,
how
we
verify
native
transactions
and
hey
this.
This
securium
address
has
enough
tokens
to
cover
the
gas
cost.
Let's
just
go
and
execute
this
transaction.
C
In
case
you
want
to
do
this.
This
will
probably
save
round
trip
that
receipt
needs
to
apply
to
edm.
A
A
And
well,
these
questions
also
tied
into
what
we
were
discussing
in
the
last
weeks
about
upgradability
right
as
in
what
what
you
really
should
be
in
the
protocol
and
what
should
be
in
the
contracts.
D
A
A
D
A
D
A
Right,
okay!
Well,
I
think
we
are
out
of
time
for
today,
so
this
discussion
will
need
to
continue
offline.
Does
anybody
have
anything
else
to
add
before
we
wrap
up.
D
C
I
do
not
agree
that
they
need
to
always
support
it,
because
there's
always
possibility
of
building
a
wrapper
for
the
new
standard
on
the
top
of
old
standard
if
it
ever
arrives.
That's
why
so
like.
Even
if
you
launch
a
bridge
with
snap
21
for
some
reason,
we
can
have
a
mint
burn
pattern
or
which
wraps
old,
nap
and
place
a
new
one.
So
basically
it
will
be
a
new
standard
that
can
consume
nap21
and
mint,
and
then,
when
you
want
to
transfer
it
back
to
an
f21,
you
can
do
this.
C
A
A
C
C
C
A
Links
in
the
meeting
notes
as
well:
okay,
anything
else
so,
shall
we
wrap
up
exactly
on
time.