Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/mrmemes
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Stephen Caudill
@mrmemes.eth
For a lot of existing tokens, it would take a significant time and capital investment to move to a compatible (or wrapped) contract... but looking forward I think the writing is on the wall for bridges. Their value add has always been faster settlement and access to broader liquidity; this addresses both. That said, we've seen "bridges" moving towards and embracing things like cross chain swaps for years, so I don't expect that to go away. For use cases outside of Token A :: Chain A -> Token A :: Chain B, we still need other solutions. There will still be utility (and money to be made) in solving cross chain and token-paired liquidity.
1 reply
2 recasts
5 reactions
notdevin
@notdevin.eth
Unless my product requires the chain itself as part of the product, and honestly even then, I don’t get why any business chooses 1 chain only, it’s like we refuse to leave the physical constraints behind.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Stephen Caudill
@mrmemes.eth
Agreed... unless you're deployed on your own app chain that you've tooled especially for your app/ecosystem's needs I don't see why a business would overtly choose to be mono-chain. Even then, you would probably still want compatibility/portability and ERC-7802 seems like a good way to do that.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
notdevin
@notdevin.eth
Crypto has like 27 users at any given moment. I bet every project could trivially manage multi chain settlement with some EOAs and a decent admin interface. They probably need 7802 when they hit a million active users sometime 5+ years from now
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Stephen Caudill
@mrmemes.eth
😂. but also 😭.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
