Those withdrawal contains several transactions. The fee is lower for every single transaction.
And important part - you pay fee for withdrawal in tokens.
You can take a look on:
This looks like depositing tokens to the L2 on mainnet. I have to agree, the Storj Labs will pay this fee to deposit STORJ to L2, but they will deposit a noticeable amount, so t should be acceptable.
The fee of L2-L2 transfer is small. And will be paid by Storj Labs too.
The fee of withdrawal from L2 to L1 will be extracted in tokens, not ETH (and you can select another token to pay this fee). This is mean, that you do not need to have ETH on L1 or L2 address to receive tokens on L1.
The interesting thing, that you can specify a different address for withdrawal, i.e. deposit of exchange for example.
So, the zkSync is only way for SNOs, who doesn’t have an ETH on their wallet yet.
It depends on what you imply with calling it simple. In terms of making a transaction it is simple indeed, I guess. But as I am using MEW wallet, and maybe some other people here too, as of this moment zksync requires me to setup different wallet with walletconnect function, which I find complicated since I don’t know which provider to choose other from MEW wallet. I have tried Atomic and Rainbow, which were recommended by walletconnect web page, but they seem to have a lot of hidden caveouts (maybe I am wrong here, please correct).
The simplest way is to use a Metamask, the MEW 24 words phrase is working with Metamask.
WalletConnect function is working fine with some other mobile wallets, which support it. Again “Metamask”, “Trust” or “Loopring” for example.
The last one uses L2 too. But I’m not sure is it possible to use it for L2 transfers from zkSync?
I think Storj Labs should create a new pool about who will use the L2 option for payout because you have a risk that only a few people will use it and you wasted development team time for the unused feature.
You are welcome!
But I think results will be predictable - all, who eligible to receive a payout because of threshold is reached already will vote for the current system, all other - maybe too, because tech is new or scare of complications or because they uses exchange deposit as their wallet.
I voted for zkSync and my last payout was 40$. The reason for it is that I would not need any ETH to move my balance to an exchange. This benefit is worth it for me.
I’m in for zksync aswel I think it would be a nice option to use. Do not see why storj would not implement both. SNO’s can choose whatever fits them best.
First, I’m seeing ETH withdrawal transactions with fees above 0.01 ETH. It’s enough to pay for two fast erc20 transactions on a very bad day, and also enough to fund a bunch of transactions on the same day if you’re willing to wait a little. So this effectively forces people to pay more to transfer storj from their wallets. Hell, if someone wants to withdraw every month, he will pay more than storj and said someone pay now together.
Second, fees are still directly tied to ETH.
Third, and most important, it’s not decentralized. They say it right in the FAQ:
However, the daily operation of the zkSync network at the moment depends on the health of the computational service provider who generates zero-knowledge proofs for the blocks.
This one is a deal breaker in my opinion. Even if exchanges I’m using adopt zksync, should the project fail I will be forced to pay withdrawal fee.
Oh, there’s fourth. I would not want to trust my storj earnings to people who accept erc20 token listing requests using google forms and whose blockchain explorer uses a ton of js and takes seconds to load a tiny transaction page.
The withdrawal is taken in tokens, not in ETH. This is a first difference. The second - the withdrawal is happened by batches, so each included TX have only part of that fee, calculated in ETH.
All other points are valid (except fee in tokens - it uses price of the token) and understandable.
This is why it’s opt-in.
However, I have not tried it on mainnet because of high fee. My test results are here:
If withdrawals can be as cheap as $0.17/tx while L1 erc20 fees are at least $2/tx, then why can’t storj labs use L2 in order to batch token transfers and save on gas? SNOs may want to opt in to receive L2 payments if they want, but the point here is that nothing changes for the rest of SNOs.
The point of L2 is to save money on payouts. Using L2->L1 withdrawal if the fees are indeed as low as stated above effectively solves the high fee problem without any involvement from SNO.
Cheapest solution: L2->L2 payout and maybe once per year call withdraw and sell your payout.
Second, cheapest solution: L1->L1 payout as we have now. The pure number of payouts is a problem.
More expensive solution. L2->L1 payouts.
I think it would be a nice option to use. Do not see why storj would not implement both. SNO’s can choose whatever fits them best.