Phil Cockfield
@pjc
ð¯âð» â ð (Q)
3 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Phil Cockfield
@pjc
â @cassie, if this is true, then it would make sense to do the `cross-mint` so as to participate in the bridge back into Quilibirium of the rewards. Just to be on the historical record of having "been there, done that" right? ...as opposed to just waiting on the QUIL for v2? Any downside? Seems like learning upside
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Cassie Heart
@cassie
There's a number of reasons folks have expressed for their want to use it. Historical record, consolidation, or having a transactable token (as they're frozen on the Q side until 2.0). No downside, learning upside, but Q Inc explicitly will not bridge any tokens rewarded to its own infrastructure peers.
3 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Cassie Heart
@cassie
It's also a tripwire for the MPC operations â if the Q Inc peers are detected as a valid cross mint proof request, the bridge immediately terminates/alarms go off.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
sean
@swabbie.eth
i'm probably missing some basics here, but if ethereum wQUIL can't be bridged into QUIL, there's an inherent downside to those wrapped tokens since it's not possible to convert them to native assets, correct?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Phil Cockfield
@pjc
"Q Inc" is a damn cool company name! Thanks @cassie
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction