risks/advantages: "admin" having ability to change things on behalf of user, if there is not time period defined when admin can't do this.
would it help to simplify the system if we didn't deploy the whole snapshot, or are these users useful for transitive transfers. We suspects it a HUGE number.
risk: this doesn't stop token minting from v1, doens't burn - confusing / still used.
why it is bad if v1 still exists? potential to introduce bugs, unknowns: are there social effects of it still existing? confusion?
expensive in gas
what if we don't finish in the migration window (we need a deadline for the admin to mint user tokens - it should be temporary)
B) migrate with user interaction.
Meaning to mint all of the historical (total amount of) UBI tokens of a single user when they migrate and transfer it as the users holding those tokens in the old system migrate.
risks/advantages: only partial network is migrated at a time, balances and trust network change and confuse the user
question= is it significantly better to clean up the network? (we suspect yes, but has to be researched)
C) not migarting old balances and starting over
risk - users stop using circles
Things to keep in mind:
should old V1 tokens be burnt? Not fully possible in all solutions
is it impotant to keep the same balance in migration?
is it important to keep the complete web of trust of inactive accounts
how to communicate the migration - are some options harder to communicate?
There are 3 viable options:
Things to keep in mind: