You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am aware of mints reputation based on reviews on Nostr. However, I wonder if some evidence of rug pulls can be more effective and more socially scalable than a WoT, basically a proof that all issued tokens corresponds to a sum of an onchain UTXO possibly representing LN channels, then whenever a withdrawal from that UTXO has no corresponding authorization from a token owner, the reputation of the mint can be burned in an observable manner, possibly by publishing the contradiction on L1.
This doesn't prevent rug pulls, but it might prevent repeated rug pulls, and immensely favors long running mints without any incidents.
Why is that impossible or impractical or not desirable in the first place?
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I am aware of mints reputation based on reviews on Nostr. However, I wonder if some evidence of rug pulls can be more effective and more socially scalable than a WoT, basically a proof that all issued tokens corresponds to a sum of an onchain UTXO possibly representing LN channels, then whenever a withdrawal from that UTXO has no corresponding authorization from a token owner, the reputation of the mint can be burned in an observable manner, possibly by publishing the contradiction on L1.
This doesn't prevent rug pulls, but it might prevent repeated rug pulls, and immensely favors long running mints without any incidents.
Why is that impossible or impractical or not desirable in the first place?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions