-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 143
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
atomic assoc contracts #711
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ | ||
--- | ||
hip: 0000 | ||
title: Optimstic token association for smart contracts | ||
author: Matthew DeLorenzo <[email protected]>, Vae Vecturne <[email protected]> | ||
type: Standards Track | ||
category: Service | ||
needs-council-approval: Yes | ||
status: Draft | ||
created: 2023-04-06 | ||
updated: 2023-05-12 | ||
discussions-to: https://github.com/hashgraph/hedera-improvement-proposal/discussions/696 | ||
--- | ||
|
||
## Abstract | ||
|
||
Smart contracts are required to be associated with all tokens they custody. This makes sense when the contract has a long lived balance > 0; Hedera state is expanded and must be paid for in ongoing maintenance and storage costs to the network. However, there are many use cases that call for smart contracts atomically taking custody of a token, often to transfer to another entity within the same contract call. In this case, association is still required but Hedera state is not expanded. | ||
|
||
We propose that association not be required for Hedera entities that only custody a token during an atomic transaction. | ||
|
||
## Motivation | ||
|
||
Currently, a smart contract attempting to custody an unassociated token will be immediately rejected by the network. This presents a problem in some decentralized finance (DeFi) applications that use smart contracts to atomically custody tokens. Decentraliztion may be achieved by allowing contracts to remain token agnostic, but also prevent spamming attacks by allowing any user to associate tokens to a DeFi smart contract. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Does the proposal refer to all smart contract regardless of creation path? This might be a good section to address why that path is not sufficient for the proposal There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This proposal refers to all smart contracts regardless of creation path. Smart contracts are often intermediaries for many different tokens, so it becomes a challenge to maintain association maps and retain decentralization. Presently, dexes are associating/dissociating tokens using precompiles every time they are used as intermediaries. If Hedera was able to refine association checks such that the ending contract balance must be greater than zero, it would eliminate the need to pay 5 cents more per transaction. We will address why the max_automatic_token_association is not sufficient. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @Nana-EC this is now addressed on line 24 |
||
|
||
`MAX_AUTOMATIC_ASSOCIATION` would not be sufficient for technical and some practical reasons. A decentralized contract that mediates transfers between two parties using auto-association slots would have to dissociate the token to free a slot for the next transfer upon completion. However, this process can be corrupted by a third party by sending tokens directly to the contract (without the execution of contract code), thereby requiring another party to dissociate the undesired tokens from the contract. | ||
|
||
Another example is the contract caller would need to pay for dissociation of the token each time. For contracts that self-custody a variable number of tokens in a contract call (for example, UniswapV3 Swap Router), the burden of calculating how much gas to send is placed on the front end application. Due to the relatively high cost of associating and dissociating tokens using smart contract precompiles, a comparatively low upper limit is placed on the number of tokens that can be custodied by the contract. If instead tokens could optimistically be associated to contracts, the gas cost of association/disociation is not needed, and contracts are instead bounded primarily by computation and transfer costs. | ||
|
||
## Rationale | ||
|
||
Periphery contracts for decentralized exchanges (DEXes), such as Uniswap V2 and V3, are designed to atomically custody tokens. For DEXes on Hedera, gas-inefficient workarounds are used to associate and dissociate tokens to periphery smart contracts, paid by end-users. | ||
|
||
## Specification | ||
|
||
Hedera Smart Contract Service optimistically allows custody of any token for smart contracts, and checks at the end of a contract call that tokens are associated to entities whose balance is changing from zero to nonzero. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Would this feature be opt-in or opt-out? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I would like to see this applied to every smart contract. If a contract's token balance changes from zero to nonzero during a contract call transaction, then check for association at the end of the transaction. I would also support opt-in or opt-out if there are use cases that call for it. If an opt-in flag is enabled, and the contract can create another contract using CREATE or CREATE2, then the created contracts should inherit the property from the parent contract. |
||
|
||
### Successful | ||
|
||
The response code for token transfer of a token not associated to a smart contract, whose balance is equal to zero at the end of the transaction, is SUCCESS = 22. | ||
|
||
### Revert | ||
|
||
The response code for token transfer of a token not associated to a smart contract, whose balance is nonzero at the end of the transaction, is TOKEN_NOT_ASSOCIATED_TO_ACCOUNT = 184, or a new enum TOKEN_NOT_ASSOCIATED_TO_CONTRACT. | ||
|
||
## User stories | ||
|
||
As a solidity developer, I do not want to associate tokens to a smart contract that custodies tokens but is not designed to have token balances. | ||
|
||
## Backwards Compatibility | ||
|
||
This would be backward compatible. | ||
|
||
## Security Implications | ||
|
||
Incorrect implementation of optimistic token association could result in expansion of global token state for very little cost, resulting in a potentially large storage burden. | ||
|
||
## How to Teach This | ||
|
||
N/A | ||
|
||
## Reference Implementation | ||
#### Example : | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. In the code examples below, I'd recommend:
|
||
Example of a transfer transaction that should be allowed: | ||
|
||
``` | ||
/** | ||
* @dev Example function to transfer entire balance of unassociated tokens | ||
* @param token The HTS token to transfer | ||
* @param treasury The recipient of the token transfer (is associated to token) | ||
*/ | ||
function function1(address token, address recipient) external { | ||
require(IERC20(token).balanceOf(address(this)) == 0); | ||
HederaTokenService.dissociateToken(token, address(this)); | ||
// assumes msg.sender approved an allowance to address(this) | ||
HederaTokenService.transferToken(token, msg.sender, address(this), 1); | ||
int respCode = HederaTokenService.transferToken(token, address(this), recipient, 1); | ||
assert(respCode == 22); | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
Example of a transfer transaction that should not be allowed: | ||
|
||
``` | ||
/** | ||
* @dev Example of a function call that should fail because address(this) balance is nonzero at end of function call | ||
* @param token The HTS token to transfer | ||
* @param treasury The recipient of the token transfer (is associated to token) | ||
*/ | ||
function function2(address token, address recipient) external { | ||
require(IERC20(token).balanceOf(address(this)) == 0); | ||
HederaTokenService.dissociateToken(token, address(this)); | ||
// assumes msg.sender approved an allowance to address(this) | ||
HederaTokenService.transferToken(token, msg.sender, address(this), 2); | ||
HederaTokenService.transferToken(token, address(this), recipient, 1); | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
## Rejected Ideas | ||
|
||
None as of yet. | ||
|
||
## Open Issues | ||
|
||
None as of yet. | ||
|
||
## References | ||
|
||
- 1 - https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-20 | ||
- 2 - https://hips.hedera.com/hip/hip-23 | ||
- 3 - https://hips.hedera.com/hip/hip-367 | ||
- 4 - https://github.com/LimeChain/HeliSwap-contracts/blob/13ba01b9ed89201888283c56e76a4e266489a7ff/contracts/periphery/UniswapV2Router02.sol#L141 | ||
- 5 - https://github.com/Uniswap/v3-periphery/blob/6cce88e63e176af1ddb6cc56e029110289622317/contracts/SwapRouter.sol#L147 | ||
|
||
|
||
## Copyright/license | ||
|
||
This document is licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 -- see [LICENSE](../LICENSE) or (https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My perspective here is that if the contract ever held custody of an asset, it should pay the association cost out of sheer fairness to all entities in the network. Doing something else is giving special treatment to contracts when they are just another entity and should be treated as such.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@littletarzan want to make sure you saw this comment ^^
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mgarbs Is it true the association fee is to help pay for expanded network state size? If so, then atomic custody of tokens by smart contracts without association would not add to the net size of the network state. It seems unreasonable to have to pay the association fee to custody a token for an atomic or infinitesimal amount of time.