Hi @KALEB Thanks nice SIP.
Do you see this as being open to anyone coming to unwrap sETH for ETH or can only the original wrappers unwrap the ETH? I see an edge case towards the low end of utilisation where a wrapper can’t unwrap as others use it as an exit for sETH to ETH.
hey @clints , yeah the intention is that anyone can unwrap sETH back to ETH, not the original wrapper and it can be any amount (up to the amount of ETH locked in the contract).
So if you have, in a simplistic example with no minting and burning rates, 3 addresses that wrapped ETH into sETH in different random amounts of let’s say 1 ETH / 2 ETH / 3 ETH. Then a different wallet (from those 3) can unwrap by burning sETH any amount between 0 and 6 ETH… so they could do 2.5 sETH burning and receive back 2.5 ETH.
Hey @KALEB, cheers for writing this up. I have a suggestion for this SIP, that we replace all ETH logic with using WETH instead. This would make the contract deployable on Optimism OVM (OVM doesn’t support ETH, instead they have a native WETH deployment), as well as reduce integration complexity for anyone coming from DeFi (where WETH is the norm). What do you think?
Hey @liamz , yeah sure makes complete sense to ease integration into L2 and allow for other tokens to be used in the same contract without rewriting all of the code… I will speak to my co-author about this, but I think there is no issue at all on this… Please go ahead