I don’t foresee such an eventuality being very likely as there’s nothing for the core protocol to do to continue “supporting” SLP since it strictly depends on the OP_RETURN capability. That said, if a token capability for the core protocol does look like it’s gaining traction, having a viable path for migration to (and possibly from) the new protocol would certainly be a positive attribute of such a proposal and I suspect quite doable. But, even then, I don’t think adoption of such a capability would have any direct technical impact preventing SLP from continuing to work precisely as it does now should people want that.
1 Like
You are correct that there is nothing that prevents the spec existing on Op_Return.
However, the app-layer relies on functioning middleware and wallet support. Their decisions are definitely having an impact on SLP v1 right now. You may have already noticed somethings simply don’t work, aren’t added or are not supported anymore.
The SLP Foundation can only provide monetary incentives for middleware to be maintained, but if middle layer products (nodes, wallets and APIS) take the view that it is pointless, then we can easily arrive at a point where infra for SLP v1 becomes more and more unusable, and finally a customer service nightmare for businesses reliant on it (Sideshift, Coinflex, USDT, and so on).
If your argument is they can just build their own indexers and so on…then that goes back to the whole “adding cost” argument to businesses that currently add value to the ecosystem.
Not saying it’s that bad yet. My messages are to convince anyone reading, it’s worth supporting because it makes sense to support Legacy before a new system is launched into mainnet, migration plan and all.
1 Like
You guys please move to a separate location. This has moved out of scope for the topic.