The Polygon L2 is several orders of magnitude easier from an end-user perspective

  • zksync L2 → zksync L2 ~ $0.40
  • polygon L2 → polygon L2 ~ $0.03

After using both zksync and polygon for a few weeks, polygon L2 is several orders of magnitude easier from an end-user perspective and an order of magnitude cheaper. There’s also an option to map L1 tokens to polygon L2 tokens. As far as I can tell, the mapping function copies the Ethereum contract at the mainnet address into a polygon contract address. At that point, anyone can create a token pool on one of the L2 enabled DeFi platforms… and suddenly STORJ L2 is born! … and can be exchanged for wETH for $0.65

STORJ may already exist on polygon, I haven’t checked yet…

1 Like
1 Like

That’s for payouts for node operators.

The token itself, however, is simply a smart contract. The execution code exists in the blockchain. This code can be copied and run in another blockchain… regardless of the original author’s actions or wishes.

Here’s the list of mapped tokens:

https://mapper.matic.today/

STORJ is already on the list of mapped tokens…



So, it looks like someone was already experimenting with transferring STORJ on and off polygon via the imported token contract. The polygon blockchain explorer has a few transactions listed for the token, but no pools have been setup on any DeFi platforms… yet.

Given enough time, it’s going to start happening… STORJ will exist on Polygon… The pull of gravity will work its magic.

EDIT…

Here’s someone trying out the deposit of about $2000 USD worth of STORJ into polygon…

https://etherscan.io/tx/0x57112bb03e41b1e027ec17dfed663f4969bd19060003d034d389831b5e4a407b

Later the tokens pop back into Ethereum mainnet via a polygon withdraw.

The only thing left to do is have a quorum of STORJ holders decide to jump onto polygon and start creating STORJ/ETH pools for exchange. I’ve seen the same thing happen to BAT. The polygon BAT pools are set in strange ways. Perhaps Brave did that… on purpose… to attempt to prevent people from trading via unofficial token contracts on sidechains.

EDIT 2…



I just tried out the whole process.

I transferred a small stack of STORJ over to polygon and created a Sushi swap token pool set at the current coingecko ETH/STORJ price. I’ll monitor the price and re-create the pool as necessary for the new base line… but if I forget, and STORJ goes up in price a lot on mainnet, anyone can have some cheap L2 polygon STORJ by emptying my liquidity at Sushi swap.

For the SNO payout perspective it seems do not add too much as a zkSync: you still need to withdraw now mapped STORJ or ETH to the Ethereum and pay the Ethereum fee, but in case of Polygon you seems can pay fee only in ETH.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.

I disagree on this point…

Polygon is a complete Ethereum blockchain. zkSync is sort of like an off-chain escrow system. Token exchange is already running quite nicely on Polygon.

I’m not saying Storj should pay tokens on Polygon… but it would make life a whole lot easier for SNOs who may want to swap tokens. Withdrawal from Polygon to mainnet is expensive, but there is a lot that can be done within the Polygon blockchain itself.

All that would be required to pay SNOs on Polygon would be to deposit those tokens into Polygon and then send via Polygon to the same address… just like zkSync. The token contract is already in the blockchain. My tokens transferred with no issues whatsoever.

If it would be so easy for us to send payouts via Polygon as it is with zkSync, then why not?

We actually call an API function on zkSync to send payouts using CSV with wallets and sums.
If the Polygon is able to do the same - then it could be added as a wallet feature for SNO.

You can vote for it by specifying the agreed with other SNO name of this feature in the operator.wallet-features parameter/option of the storagenode.

I would ask the team - is it possible to use or not.
It would be nice, if you could provide some docs or links to their bridge and how to call their API.

I should warn though, if it requires to spent developers’ time to implement something on Polygon itself - this suggestion will be declined.

3 Likes

That would definitely get my vote!

My understanding of the zkSync payout process:

  • Satellite operators deposit STORJ into zkSync via https://wallet.zksync.io/
  • Payment is sent to the wallet Ethereum addresses within zkSync

Changes required for Polygon payout process:

  • Satellite operators deposit STORJ into Polygon via https://wallet.polygon.technology/bridge
  • Satellite operators need to obtain MATIC tokens for payment of transactions on Polygon
  • Payment is sent to the wallet Ethereum addresses within Polygon

In both cases, satellite operators or whomever is disbursing the payments activates an Ethereum mainnet smart contract to deposit the tokens into the L2 payment system. The current transactions fees on Polygon are much cheaper than zkSync.

MATIC tokens are about $1.65 and transactions in the Proof of Stake blockchain run about $0.001 and swaps about $0.01 …

My prior quote of $0.65 was much too high… I haven’t been looking at my transaction fees.

Literally 1.0 MATIC is probably enough for a full year of active swapping on Polygon. Therefore, Storj could save thousands of USD worth of payment distribution fees by dumping through Polygon rather than zkSync.

This is a show stopper unfortunately. We will not have a deal with any trade activity.

I’ll donate $25 worth of MATIC to each Satellite Operator address.

I’m afraid this would not make any difference.
However, we need to consult with our legal department.
If they could take STORJ tokes as a payment method it may resolve this issue.

Do they have some kind of “dispenser” (mass sender), like zkSync?

Since Polygon is its own blockchain, the transaction fees are paid in its native token…

  • Ethereum mainnet → ETH
  • Polygon (Ethereum PoS blockchain) → MATIC

I’m not sure where the original ETH came from to pay for the current payments. I wasn’t involved in the original token release before the jump onto Ethereum. I can’t imagine there be legal issues if some random individual donates a small amount of MATIC… But IANAL.



EDIT…

It’s slightly humorous reading the blog post about Storj switching to Ethereum…

https://www.storj.io/blog/migration-from-counterparty-to-ethereum

Use of an Ethereum-based token offers clear solutions to the problems listed above:

  1. Development is extremely active. Features are added regularly and bugs are dealt with quickly.
  2. Ethereum transactions are usually confirmed in seconds to minutes.
  3. Ethereum fees are currently negligible.
  4. Future layer 2 solutions like Raiden are promising, and explicitly support ERC20 tokens.

The times, they are a changin’

Yes, this why this article is exist:

We selected a “blockchain of the future” and now we here…

Searching with you an another “blockchain of the future” :rofl:

1 Like

Yeah…

But…

Ethereum PoS is definitely what’s going forward from this point in the blockchain space. My guess is Polygon and other side chains are going to evolve and take over the DeFi space in the next 12 months. There will appear some neat cross-chain price oracles for generic side chain use…


On the topic of how to get MATIC…

The Polygon wallet allows swapping any token for gas token (MATIC):

https://wallet.polygon.technology/swap

STORJ is already on the list, because someone mapped the Ethereum Mainnet contract to Polygon.

1 Like

I generated a flow chart diagram of the possible payment process via Polygon L2 Network…


4 Likes

This is interesting. @Alexey is right that there may be some (significant) complications for us, but I didn’t realize STORJ was already on Polygon. As it pertains to the mega-FAQ, the answers about “wrapped tokens” seem to apply here, so we’ll begin looking into this.

8 Likes

I’m also a huge user of MATIC/Polygon. I feel that my zkSync Storj rewards are stuck because all of my other assets are on Polygon and/or Terra because of the absolutely ridiculously low transaction fees and huge defi ecosystem. As you point out, wrapped Storj may help here. So yes, please look into this as it would make storj more accessible in defi/trading/etc.

I loved the idea of zkSync, but as @beast pointed out, the fees are not as promised and the ecosystem is just not up to par. Yes, zkSync is a more “pure” L2 and arguably more secure than polygon, but polygon has already proven itself in my opinion.

I also think that Polygon should be implemented as an extra payment method, at least until the ETH2 merge is done, some other VPN nodes (I do not say the name so as not to advertise) already implement Matic on mainnet and the truth that is going very well.

Polygon +1

So GOLEM just added polygon as their default payment and it seems to be working flawlessly.

1 Like

I think if storj used Polygon instead of zksync much more would opt into it I can for sure tell you that. Being able to swap storj to matic then matic to an exchange would be so much better, and it cost no fees unlike zksync which you have to pay an activation fee to even use it which is a No go for me. I tested this with golem it cost me 9cents to swap golem with matic… Mostly all exchanges already support matic, which I tested with crypto.com.

2 Likes

So far not a single node signals polygon. Is it because you don’t know how or what is the reason?