Outlining a standard interface for cross-domain ERC20 Transfers

EIPs
,
2

Excited to see this stuff standardized!

Here are my unsolicited thoughts:

  • I still believe a transferAndCall pattern is much more useful and a much better UX (requires some off chain logic otherwise along with adding additional parameters on functions to fetch the right data). The risk vector seems super mild (reentrancy) considering you can just slap a nonReentrant modifier on it.

  • The registry interface is great for users/devs, in terms of maintainers I’m not sure who would want to be maintaining those as it would probably be very expensive and whoever had admin control would be a serious target and hold a lot of power. Off-chain tokenlists are likely more scaleable and secure, however it would require user input which costs additional gas to ingest.

Only other thing I would comment on is standardizing the ‘semi-canonical’ bridges that a lot of rollups are considering? I know Arbitrum has a recommended/default tokenbridge and the ‘unibridge’ (david mihal) has been proposed and I believe accepted by the Optimism community. Ensuring those standards are aligned seems important.

3 Likes