Should we allow EVM compatible contracts on Asset Hub?

Wish For Change
9 Comments
Deciding
  • Content
  • AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation1d
Attempts
0
Tally
97.1%Aye
2.9%Nay
Aye
54.84MDOT
Nay
1.66MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

Threshold

Support(0.99%)
14.35MDOT
Issuance
1.45BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Calls
  • Call
  • Metadata
  • Timeline3
  • Votes Bubble
  • Statistics
Comments
Sort by
Oldest

In the history of the mankind private property has proven million times that private is more effective then public.

Why is contracts on system chains a problem then?

In general seeing contracts as second class citizens, which may exist on some "private" chain or not has proven to be detrimental to Polkadot's success. The easiest way to get started, is contracts! We need to provide this entry point as ubiquitous as possible, on any parachain, system or not.

Polkadot provides the means to go above contracts, but we fail to attract the large pool of projects, for which contracts suffice. They all go elsewhere.

So you can count on 90% of existing parachains to do what a few have done so far - move to/grow in other ecosystems.

Why would they? Attracting more users and developers to Polkadot will be beneficial to them as well. If they offer things asset hub does not provide, their service is only an XCM away. The reason why teams move elsewhere is precisely because we fall short in attracting users/developers and capital. This initiative is meant to help fixing this.

Moving elsewhere, likely means becoming a contract somewhere else, but if your parachain can be written as a contract, then in fact you are also benefiting from contracts on asset hub - you can launch your application there at lower cost, but have the ability to become a parachain again if adoption goes through the roof. If you go elsewhere, you are stuck being a contract forever.

Reply
Up