You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Per discussion w/ @nksazonov and others, some channels may want to manage several types of assets simultaneously. Performing a separate deposit transaction for each asset is inefficient.
#1574 introduced batch deposits of either ETH or a single ERC20 into many channels simultaneously via a proxy BatchOperator contract. The same approach will not work in this case, because each individual ERC20 token would require its own
Plan / recommendation: implement a depositAssetBatch function directly on MultiAssetHolder. The implementation can follow the pattern established in BatchOperator - just receive arrays of data that will be forwarded into the existing deposit function.
Might also be nice to have some gas benchmarks to compare an n-ERC20 token deposit against n calls to deposit.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Per discussion w/ @nksazonov and others, some channels may want to manage several types of assets simultaneously. Performing a separate
deposit
transaction for each asset is inefficient.#1574 introduced batch deposits of either ETH or a single ERC20 into many channels simultaneously via a proxy
BatchOperator
contract. The same approach will not work in this case, because each individual ERC20 token would require its ownPlan / recommendation: implement a
depositAssetBatch
function directly onMultiAssetHolder
. The implementation can follow the pattern established inBatchOperator
- just receive arrays of data that will be forwarded into the existingdeposit
function.Might also be nice to have some gas benchmarks to compare an
n-ERC20
token deposit againstn
calls todeposit
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: