LIP-73: Confluence - Arbitrum One Migration

So this equates to a reduction in the financial barrier to entry from 18 ETH to 5 ETH, which is a sizeable reduction in the barrier to entry for new Broadcasters!

This >72% reduction effectively makes it ~4 times easier to become a Broadcaster on Livepeer.

This would be great news for the public network, as it seeks to increase the diversity of Broadcasters on Livepeer!

Also, am I right in thinking that if my Dad is delegated to my O, and I migrate my stake to L2, then their LPT will move to L2 as well, with no LPT left on L1?

His stake would be migrated when your O migrates to L2 since an O will migrate with its entire delegated stake. Then, his stake would begin accruing rewards and fees if your O calls reward and redeems ticket on L2. Technically, his stake would be managed by a delegator pool contract on L2. Later on, he would be able to submit a transaction on L2 to claim his stake from the delegator pool as well as any owed rewards and fees.

  1. Are there any plans for migrating undelegated tokens to L2?

  2. What do we see as being the main pain points / confusion for people - e.g. users who are accustomed to things working in a certain way, and then being confused when this changes? Asking so that we can be prepared with some FAQs to send people to when they come to ask what’s going on :slight_smile:

  1. Are there any plans for migrating undelegated tokens to L2?

A tokenholder will be able to move unstaked LPT to L2 using https://bridge.arbitrum.io/ which will use the LPT gateway contracts on L1 and L2 under the hood to facilitate the transfer.

1 Like

A tokenholder will be able to move unstaked LPT to L2 using https://bridge.arbitrum.io/ which will use the LPT gateway contracts on L1 and L2 under the hood to facilitate the transfer.

From a cursory look, it seems like using the bridge to migrate will require two transactions: an approve and a deposit.

So then, I guess there would be a marginal advantage for an undelegated tokenholder to:
a) approve and bond on L1, and then be migrated to L2 when their O migrates (two L1 txns),
vs.
b) approve and deposit on L1, then approve and bond on L2 (two L1 txns + two L2 txns).

I wonder whether there’s some value in communicating this to undelegated tokenholders, to “get on board” before Livepeer moves to L2?

I’m curious whether this is actually an advantage given relative gas usage.

Scenario A would still require one L2 transaction (claim).

If deposit in Scenario B is notable cheaper than bond in Scenario A, then Scenario A might be more expensive. But I’m not sure whether that’s the case or not. Any insights @yondon?

The amount of txs don’t really matter. It’s the total amount of gas that those tx use that matters.

Approve txs on L1 use roughly the same amount of gas, so can be neglected. The txs on L2 in b) can also be neglected since they’re on L2 where fees are cheap :slight_smile:

Bonding costs anywhere from 275k up to 400k gas. Depositing into the Arbitrum bridge costs ~200k gas (Arbitrum: L1 Custom Gateway | 0xcee284f754e854890e311e3280b767f80797180d).

So bridging the tokens instead of bonding and getting bridged is at least 25% cheaper

1 Like

OK, thanks for the responses.

In general, I wonder how it might be possible to make life less difficult for the owners of the 2.6m addresses which received ~2.4 LPT in the MerkleMine. I guess the gas on L1 might get cheaper if more projects migrate transactions to L2s (??), but I think it’s worth considering whether this migration might effectively cut loose around 6m tokens, or ~25% of current supply, and if so, whether this is appropriate.

1 Like

What do you mean by “cut loose”? Their situation will only improve: Right now if they want to swap or stake LPT they have to pay crazy gas prices. With the migration to L2 their cost is actually reduced since it only requires ~200k gas to move over, less than a swap or bond. And then on L2 swaps and staking costs just a few $.

And there’s always the option to just transfer those tokens to a centralized exchange for only a few $, even with current gas prices.

2 Likes

OK, thanks for your responses.

Transferring LPT to a contract wallet on a CEX costs 78349 gas, which at 100 gwei gas, and $3000 ETH = $23.50.

So, if an address received 2.4 LPT, currently worth $91.51, this represents an onchain overhead of ~25%, which I guess is high, but at least it’s less than 100% :}

AFAIK transfers only costs ~52k gas (e.g. to coinbase or binance - you have to look at the gas used not the gas limit). And on weekends/holidays you can usually still get gas prices of ~50 gwei. So I wouldn’t says that’s too bad for an otherwise free 2.4 LPT :wink:
Most other airdrops require a claim tx that costs more than this transfer (or the L2 migration).

But we’re getting a bit off-topic here…

But we’re getting a bit off-topic here…

We are and we aren’t. I know that some have written off the MerkleMined LPT as being effectively “burned”. I still wish to understand how / whether they are being considered are part of such migrations.

1 Like