As discussion about future token schemes grows, I’d like us to consider what the options are in terms of migration for users of SLP.
Since SLP is permissionless and not part of the consensus rules by design, the introduction of a new miner-validated token scheme does not imply the end of life of SLP.
Some of the tradeoffs made by SLP will drive adoption of new token schemes.
At least two such schemes are already in discussion [1, 2], and there is also the third option of adding SLP validation to consensus rules (which would probably not require migration since invalid SLP transactions would simply not be accepted by BCH nodes).
But for the other schemes, let’s consider what we can offer to issuers generally in terms of migration from SLP to a new scheme.
There is no reason at this time why BCH would need to remove any functionality relied upon by SLPv1. Those who wish to maintain their own SLPv1 token infrastructure ought not be impeded at all.
A token issuer could run some tokens on the old (SLPv1) scheme, and run only newer tokens on a non-SLP scheme, and abstract that difference away in their own application. In order to incentivize their users to switch over, such sites could offer to redeem the old tokens for new ones, burning the old SLP tokens which are redeemed.
Alternatively, issuers could announce to their users that they are migrating their existing tokens to a new scheme via airdropping “replacement” tokens to their holders as part of a coordinated switchover with services supporting that token. I believe this could be problematic for heavily traded tokens where it is difficult to get everyone to halt trading, then airdrop and resume on the new scheme. Failing that would result in double spends of the token.
What other migration strategies can we suggest?