I do not. Layered security was proposed as a feature that would be supported after the big milestones on the roadmap, just as Susruth described in that screenshot. This RFC does not propose changing any of Ren 2.0’s rollout plan. It just proposes adding layered security as an additional phase of that rollout (which may have been the case anyway) and then adopting it for RenBridge.
There were 28 months between the REN ICO and Ren’s mainnet launch. Almost all token offerings are held many months prior to the token being utilized.
Yes, layered security requires two tokens. Two sets of nodes secured by the same token would just be shards, not discrete networks. Almost as importantly, the layered security / two token design would be a real-world example of what other token communities could get by using RenEVM, which could have a bigger positive effect on RenEVM’s security than RenBridge using it on its own.
I’ve changed my mind on this. We need to be realistic about how decentralized this project really is. Renlabs holds all the cards, and if they have misgivings on the complexity of this approach and think it will cause delay, then I’m against this proposal as well.
Given that Greycore is in limbo (do we have control of the keys or not? Seems no…) we need the most expedient path to bringing Ren 2.0 to market, and resuming mints and burns of renBTC. There is still 786 btc/20 million worth of renBTC that remains wrapped and stuck on Ren 1.0 as of this writing. So whatever the devs prefer is what I’m in favor of.
This proposal has merit, but unfortunately this DAO is just not there yet.
I don’t think Ren is against this, they just cannot lead it or participate in it other than providing technical assistance. Someone else has to lead it, finance it, organize it. And according to David it will not delay deployment of Ren 2.0.
So we can have our cake and eat it too if willing to accept inflation as well as put in the effort to get this idea into action independently of Ren Labs, and if we can develop an economic strategy to offset any funds and new tokens raised here with a reduction of inflation of Ren so we aren’t hit with double whammy.
This proposal sounds very compelling, and if time were not of the essence, a very strong solution. I wish I knew enough about how this vision for REN2.0 varied from what has already been written and how much of a shift it would be.
My main concern, as others have voiced, is that the likelihood is renBTC will only fall into irrelevance once. With the current bear market conditions and all those jaded crypto industry followers proclaiming “this time it really is dead” with peak intensity, I’m afraid another two years of development before REN2.0 can launch would effectively kill the DAO in its crib and run a high risk of lackluster enthusiasm from integrators.
The most important thing is keeping renBTC secure, and relevant — and decentralized. I’m with whatever gets us there fastest.