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
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
Cassie Heart
@cassie
It's not possible to convert back until 2.0, but will be convertible back at that time.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
sean
@swabbie.eth
do you have any mint rate projections and/or current total rewarded (minted or not)?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cassie Heart
@cassie
Yes, the entire reward set is publicly available and can be scrutinized and matched against the bridge data (claiming also requires submitting a proof which is built against this reward data, they are intrinsically linked as a shutdown measure if something went off the rails)
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
