How Close is Side Chain Interoperability?

For the sake of discussion, say I’m an architect for an Ethereum based Token or Coin. I’m guessing this isn’t all done yet, but when it is, I could pretty easily use the same contracts already developed for Ethereum on the Cardano chains? That is, there is already a plan to have a way of adapting their contracts directly, is that correct?

What would my choices be in terms of operating on both systems at the same time? I could imagine planning a transition from one “main chain” to another, but it is reasonable to have both as long as both are live? If I understand, Cardano contracts could be based either on ADA, or any currency that can interoperate.

I’m guessing I’m not the only one still learning the important details and answering these questions will help everyone think about the issues. I wan’t to know what the capabilities are, currently and in the near term roadmap. I apologize in advance if there are really basic FAQ questions.

Interoperability will come after the Goguen phase (Goguen will come by Q3 - Q4/2019). My guess is about a year from now for interoperability.

Yes, very much so, that has been one of the main aims. I believe some standards such as ERC20 can be ported over directly.

Great question! I’d like to know that too. Until very recently I assumed it would be one system at a time, but not so sure now.

1 Like

I suspect that if you did both, it would be two different coins/tokens/contracts, but maybe there could be simple or in the contract conversions. Maybe even both ways.

Look at it this way
If you have a smartcontract on etherium blocckchain would be smarter to run it in IELE ( cardano ) it would be cheaper , secure and more efficient than running it on etherium blockchain

Why you would maintain both chains if cardano’s is more efficient ?
If you already have a smart contract on Ethereum I guess it’s a migration what you would need, in that case look at traxia!

In case of interoperability, it’s not just cardano must have sidechain to be possible, you need the other part to adopt the protocol to create a bridge of communication between the two blockchains and yes in that case you could transfer a token from chain A to Chain B without any problem

1 Like

Actually, I was thinking of using two “main” chains, the Cardano SL (ADA coins?) vs. BTC. You could transfer either to the same IELE based sidechain, right? Then you still have to keep them straight when transferring back because the “limit” would have to be per chain. You can’t say a lot generally because it all depends on details of different use agreements and obligations. If you are collateralizing issued coins with their CDP instraments, you would still have that part, but implemented or running on top of Cardano contracts.

The use cases that I’m even more interested in wouldn’t be collateral but more like a cross between a gift and a security token. The token could be designed as a long term stable store of value and it would function like a “slow/patient” money investment. Users might elect different options, some with returns (low rate) and others where the asset is explicitly gifted. The tokens can still be socially valuable in governance or directing investments, but the owner would give up the asset and maybe also get a tax break. Although the concept of taxes would be different in the future.

I m afraid can’t follow you here!
I m not sure if I understand well, anyways, imo is too soon for this conversations as we do not know how te protocol would look like once Shelley is up and sidechains implemented.

I understand their may be changes, but I thought the basics of the protocol have been designed. Sorry about lack of clarity, in terms of what sorts of contracts will be implemented, we certainly have to wait, but at this point we can talk about what will be supported and the basic elements of the protocol that will support different types of side chain contracts.

1 Like

I thought that contracts written in IELE or KEVM would operate on top of the Cardano settlement layer and as such could communicate with anything else that was a side chain to the SL.

I wondered about this earlier too.

I could be wrong but I think the concept of layer is an abstract one. By computational layer, Cardano just means a bunch of sidechains running in parallel two way pegs to SL.

What I always wanted to know was if these sidechains would have the same set of pools. If so the pool operators would be really happy down the road.

This distinction seems fairly clear and important to me. In the SL protocol, you can only move ADA between addresses on the main chain. The computation gets involved when one of the endpoints of a transaction is related to a side chain.

Storing value and retrieving it is only one application concept, but it is sort-of a limiting one. If you transfer X ADA from the main chain, you are limited to transferring X back to the main chain, so there is a bit of a two way accounting between main and side chain. On the other hand, the value proposition from any side chain can be completely different. You might get a token the you can redeem for service. Different rules for security tokens, etc.

All this happens on the side chain, and to the extent that it uses the well proven Cardano CL protocols and contracts, the data necessary to audit and regulate should be recorded on the main and/or any side chains involved as content links (hashes of some kind). If you are tying in other ledgers and tech on your side chain, the security and compliance of that part is up to you and the controlling entities for the token/coin.

It does make me wonder if/how you can tie or transfer fiat assets directly into and out of something like a side chain. You’d have to abide by a lot of banking regulations, but my question is that a good or bad way of thinking about parking fiat and other assets in some kind of tokens or coins.

Just checking my assumptions with the community. If I’m creating an architecture for a Dapp, I’m not limited by the system and protocols in terms of how many side-chains or even “foreign” chains to the extent there is some interop. possible. If my contracts are designed for them and the complexities of the contexts thus created, the system supports it.

Am I making any bad assumptions above?