Some thought on L2
These are just some ideas. Not claiming to be the final best option or whatever. Comments and alternative ideas are welcome.
TLDR
CAs: CAs should have the same ID on both L1 and L2, ensuring they exist on both chains. Preexisting CAs on L1 are assigned to L2 at genesis, with no initial emission until bridged. New assets will be registered on both chains with the same ID, and registration/unregistration will be synchronized.
Validators: Validators must run full nodes for both Beam and L2, and double as Bridge nodes. They stake Beam or BeamX and can receive BeamX incentives over XX+ years. Beam itself could serve as the gas token for L2, with fees distributed among validators. Validators could vote on TX fee levels, creating a market-driven balance between TX fees, demand, Beam price, and node costs.
Full Version
Assumptions:
- L2 is an extention of the existing L1 system. Ideally, both form an integrated common ecosystem.
- L1 POW has the higher security and better decentralization. It is considered the leading chain.
- The Beam coin has to remain the centerpiece of the ecosystem. Any changes to the structure have to benefit first and foremost Beam itself.
Confidential Assets on L1 and L2:
The goal is to maintain a simple, orderly CA ecosystem across both L1 and L2. Each CA on Beam has a unique Asset ID. Adding L2 without special measures introduces the risk of diverging asset IDs between L1 and L2, which will cause confusion. Additionally, some tokens might exist only on one chain but not on the other. Later they might get bridged but with a different ID. Lots of undesirable side-effects which should be mitigated.
Therefore, asset IDs should be synchronized across both chains, ensuring that CAs have the same ID and exist on both chains simultaneously.
Preexisting CAs:
All preexisting CAs on L1 will be assigned to L2 during the genesis block. These CAs will exist on L2, but their initial emission will be zero. Emission on L2 will occur only after bridging from L1.
New CAs After L2 Genesis:
New assets will be created on both L1 and L2 simultaneously with the same Asset ID. This ensures a consistent ecosystem across both chains, with assets being registered (but not emitted) on both chains.
Registering / Unregistering:
To maintain the ability to unregister CAs, this action must be synchronized between L1 and L2. Alternatively, we could deactivate the unregister option entirely.
CA Emission:
- Option 1: Emit assets only on L1 and bridge to L2. This is simpler and takes advantage of L1’s stronger security.
- Option 2: Emit assets on both L1 and L2, but emission is restricted to one chain at a time for each asset. Assets will be registered on both chains, but emission can occur only on one. Some contracts on the L2 might require the ability to register and emit new assets, which would make this option more favorable.
Cost of Asset Creation:
The same Beam locking rule should apply on both L1 and L2 to create an asset. The fee is paid once, regardless of where the asset is emitted.
Bridging:
The asset registration process should automatically enable bridging between L1 and L2, with all assets in the Beam ecosystem being bridgeable from the start.
Final thoughts on CAs:
Synchronizing asset IDs across L1 and L2 provides a clear UX benefit and reinforces the idea of L1 and L2 as an interconnected ecosystem.
Validators:
Node Requirements:
Validators must run full nodes for both Beam L1 and L2 to enhance node availability. They may also validate the Bridge between both layers if needed.
Staking / Gas Token / Staking Rewards:
-
Validators Stake Beam:
Validators stake Beam, and transaction (TX) fees are paid in Beam. An additional incentive in BeamX may be distributed to validators over a long period of time e.g. 50+ years and with halvings. -
Validators Stake BeamX:
Validators stake BeamX. Otherwise same as above.
Gas Token on and TX fees on L2:
Beam could perfectly serve as token for TX fees on L2.
Generally, one option could be to have validators have some power to influence the level of TX fees. Market forces might a balancing efect on Tx fees vs. Validator costs vs. usage demand.
Ideally, validators should earn enough from gas fees to avoid relying on large treasury emissions.
Important Notes:
- The BeamX supply is limited, so it cannot be emitted indefinitely. If there is any distribution, it should follow a long-term emission schedule with frequent halvings to ensure sustainability.
- Increased BeamX emissions could cause selling pressure on the token.
- Delegated proof of stake could incentivise regular non-whale user to participate in staking and reduce overall selling pressure.
- L1 / L2 Contract interoperability, also something to consider
- What makes POS chains successful? The incentive to hold and fast and dirt cheap transactions. How can get those things while keeping Beam at the heart of it?