Thanks @arj to you and the team for working out this design and articulating it within a few days of TIP-100 posting (especially given the pending snapshot vote on TIP-92).
As I said in today’s cross-team meeting, anyone who has paid attention to Forum knows that the NuCypher team is very thoughtful in your proposals and posts and super committed to protecting TACo’s value proposition of true decentralization, as well as ensuring your customers can count on that continuing long into the future.
I look forward to keeping my entire T balance staked with TACo and supporting the eventual transition to its new destination.
With Schnorr we are rolling out our own implementation and need to update way more code than just the cryptography library - this has its own risks. I am also not sure about the ~90% cost reduction. It is true that tECDSA is computationally heavy but most of the infrastructure costs are about running Bitcoin, Electrum, and Ethereum nodes assuming the operator is truly decentralized.
Anyway, my intention wasn’t to slide off the conversation to implementation details but to raise a flag that Schnorr migration is more complicated than it might seem at first. If we wanted to end the beta staker program, this would probably be the way to go. But if we want to continue it until BitVM upgrade, I would consider going straight to BitVM. But that’s something at tLabs’ discretion.
I have one more question regarding tokenomics. Based on Etherscan, there are 11,155,000,000 T in existence now. The current profit from redemption fees is $2.7M. Let’s assume the TVL goes 30x, and the same will happen to the redemption fees. This gives $81M in redemption fees, so $0.01 per T token. What am I missing?