I’m sure the project team https://across.to he will be in favor of providing us with the liquidity of his service for our customers. While our platform only works on the Ethereum network, it will be useful to have a service for transferring funds from other blockchains. This will positively affect the user experience for the better.
Are you suggesting some kind of widget suggesting bridges to users that’s integrated in the deposit flow?
Currently, any bridging would happen on the user side, as DerivaDEX only accepts USDC as an ERC20 right now for collateral.
The advantage of leaving this up to users is it allows them to find bridges that support their chosen assets/chains/security requirements.
Certainly, streamlining one option for users would be nice, but I’d encourage the DAO to look at
- what bridge is the most popular
- we probably don’t want to abstract too much for users at this point. For example, a user really must have full control of their EOA Ethereum account so they can reliably deposit and withdraw. I’m not sure an integrated bridge would save much time or effort here, as the user must still set up and manage their Ethereum wallet.
This service is one of the most popular bridges. It will be convenient if the user came, but he does not have a usdc. Immediately in the interface there is a link to across, where he will be able to change the assets that he has on the usdc in the Ethereum network. The idea seems very attractive.
It sounds like the proposal you’re thinking of would include an update to the UI linking users out to the bridge project, is that right?
I think one takeaway here is that the DAO should also implement a light framework for UI suggestions / decisions. To clarify somewhat the architecture of the design here…
- anyone can make a front-end interface to DerivaDEX.
- DEX Labs maintains one interface product for the DerivaDAO Foundation
- front-end changes do not require smart contract changes, so an on-chain vote is not necessary.
However, I think the DAO can and should make product recommendations that affect UX and the frontend. Maybe a good first step here would be
- what can the DAO use as an evaluative framework? Difficulty, risk to users, benefits to users?
I can provide links to the documentation, all questions about users are reflected there.
In light of today’s bridge exploit, I’m of the opinion that the exchange should be non-prescriptive about which bridge users choose to use. Personally, I think something like this could belong in documentation, but bridges are still very new and insecure. Promoting one in particular over others at this point would put the exchange in an unfortunate position if it were exploited.
What about a page in the documentation that explains what bridges are, and suggests a few options, while making clear the risks involved?
I’ll work on itI’ll work on it. I will look for all possible points of contact.