Discussion topic for ERC-7855 <link to ERC>
Update Log
- 2024-01-01: initial draft <link to pull request>
External Reviews
Sam Wilson @SamWilsn updated erc-7849 to erc-7855
Outstanding Issues
None as of 2025-01-06.
Since you’re extending ERC20 you don’t have to re-specify ERC20 in your ERC.
For informational purposes, I thought it was important to note it.
It clutters your proposal with redundant information. It’s not informationally beneficial because it’s redundant. It’s redundant because the dependency is linked at the top. Your proposal doesn’t need to explain ERC20. ERC20 can explain ERC20.
I built gas refunds into TrueUSD when I was at TrustToken. The scheme used the SSTORE refund, setting 1’s to 0’s. This mostly doesn’t work anymore because the refund cap was reduced from half to 20%.
Some disadvantages to your proposal:
- emits an event; this costs gas
- one rebate per user; tracking this costs gas and makes every transfer worse, adding 20000+ gas
- rebate amount ambiguously defined as 25%
- requires ether transfer; this adds 9000 gas
Normally a token transfer uses 15k to 30k gas, so adding 29k+ will make it around 50% worse.
In summary your token will add more than 25% to the transfer gas to rebate less than 25% of the transfer gas. This is a bad mechanism, though it could still have marketing advantages.
Since your rebate percentage is so close to the theoretical limit imposed by eip-3529, you could consider using the SSTORE refund, but I suspect that this will also rarely be cost-effective due to relatively stable gas prices.