Wrapped NEAR v2

[ilblackdragon]

Proposal to re-launch Wrapped NEAR contract, that doesn't take any storage deposits.

Reasoning: the current wrap.near contract has been inconvenient, because requires storage deposit before ft_transfer and doesn't have a way to transfer & unwrap support.

This issue is to achieve consensus on this proposal and track major apps transition if there is one.

[zavodil]

What is the progress on this? Would be really nice to get rid off storage expenses on wrap.near

[ilblackdragon]

I don't think there was a consensus on a transition to a new one given how adopted wrap.near is. Given work on sharded contracts started and in turn there will need to be a transition to sharded tokens - we probably won't need this.

…

On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 6:54 AM zavodil ***@***.***> wrote: What is the progress on this? Would be really nice to get rid off storage expenses on wrap.near — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Best regards, Illia Polosukhin