Is wstCKB just another iCKB?

[phroi]

Hello Stable++ folks, iCKB here :wave: I would really like to thank you one by one, RBG++, Stable++ and related projects changed overnight Nervos from an unknown chain to an over-hyped one, what a fantastic achievement, congratulations on your success! 🥳🎉🎉

I can't help but notice that for now this is the only public repository you have: no open source code repo and no proposal repo where I could open this public github issue. So here I open it for now. Of course, feel free later on to transfer this issue to the appropriate public repository, when available.

I'm the developer behind iCKB and someone asked me in the coming Reddit iCKB AMA:

I just read that through Stable++ you will be able to exchange CKB for wstCKB, which seems to be a tokenization of NervosDAO. Could you explain the differences (or just your opinion) between iCKB and wstCKB (taking into account that information about wstCKB seems very limited at the moment)?.

I searched a bit and on the net and only info I could find on wstCKB was the following:

Beyond these functions, Stable++ also introduces Liquidity Staking through Nervos Dao. Users can stake CKB in exchange for wstCKB, allowing them to earn staking rewards while still being able to use their wstCKB for investments without losing liquidity. Stable++ aims to be a multifunctional protocol, providing users with robust and diverse financial services.

If you are so gentle to entertain my curiosity, please let me ask a couple questions:

1. Could you provide a little less abstract description of wstCKB? (Pretty please)
2. How different is this approach from the now unmaintained dCKB? (TLDR: Their approach was to tokenize the holder receipt, which in turn becomes tradeable and so the holder keeps being liquid. The issue with their approach was that only the original owner could unlock the deposit)
3. How different is this approach from the upcoming iCKB? (I'm not able to reply to this answer as no details are available on wstCKB)

As usual I'm asking here since GitHub issues are SEO friendly and very likely in the future there will be other L1 developers and Nervos Folks wondering the same 😉

Love & Peace, Phroi

[phroi]

Updated the title with the info from Alive24 replies on Telegram:

At the moment, as LST is still under development [...] If anything disclosable, we attempt to make wstCKB in a way similar to wstETH in terms of rebasing mechanism and anonymous Nervos DAO cell deposit and withdrawal. Any further details are still under development and adjustment. [...] I've read the proposal today and we found a lot in common! Thanks for the advice and definitely it would be of inspirations.

From the information now available seems wstCKB is staying clear of dCKB mistakes and closely following iCKB steps.

On the other side, iCKB is now approaching its final stage before launch: iCKB is undergoing an internal audit, later on a formal external audit, then shortly after it will launch on mainnet.

iCKB has always been developed in public as a public good. As a such iCKB will be deployed by data with possibly a zero lock, so not upgradable. The reason is the following: say iCKB was deployed by type, then whoever controls the lock is hypothetically able to update the binary and steal all the funds. This applies both to iCKB and to the wstCKB you described.

All this to say, iCKB is 100% free for you and all Nervos users as the L1 scripts and their deployment are completely independent from any entity.

Are you really sure you want to develop an iCKB look-alike and double the effort?

[phroi]

Let's say, a wstCKB too similar to iCKB is developed, the result would be a split liquidity between iCKB and wstCKB, so smaller Deposit Pool size for both, which would bring the following downsides for everyone:

1. Longer withdrawal wait time as the temporal density of deposits maturity depends on Deposit Pool size.
2. Busiwork Attack feasibility.