[WITHDRAWN] Turning Bedrock bridge into factory mission request

Still drafting some of the details but I don’t want to miss the spot. This mission request should not rely on action, implementation, and/or support from the Foundation or OP Labs.

Mission Request Summary:

Upgrade the Bedrock bridge to a chain factory. Context

S5 Intent:

Intent 1: Progress towards technical decentralization

Proposing Delegate: Gonna.eth

Proposal Tier: Fledging Tier

Baseline grant amount: 80.000 OP

Should this Foundation Mission be fulfilled by one or multiple applicants: One

Submit by: [Submission Deadline - To be set by Grants Council]

Selection by: [Selection Date - To be set by Grants Council]

Start date: [Start Date - If applicable]

Completion date: [Completion Date - If applicable. Must be completed within 12 months]


How will this Delegate Mission Request help accomplish the above Intent?

Upgrading the Bedrock bridge to a chain factory will enhance technical decentralization by storing all relevant information about the L2 chain on-chain, creating a factory to deploy configuration and required contracts for each chain.

What is required to execute this Delegate Mission Request?

The applicant needs to deliver the necessary smart contract upgrades, chain factory deployments, and ensure seamless interaction with the upgraded Bedrock bridge.

How should the Token House measure progress towards this Mission?

  1. Smart Contract Upgrades
  2. Chain Factory Deployment
  3. Integration with Bedrock Bridge

How should badgeholders measure impact upon completion of this Mission?

  1. Increased On-Chain Information: Verify that all L2 chain data is stored on-chain.
  2. Efficient Chain Deployment: Assess the ease and cost-effectiveness of deploying (counterfactual) chains.

Have you engaged a Grant-as-a-service provider for this Mission Request?

Has anyone other than the Proposing Delegate contributed to this Mission Request?
The original idea came from Zach Obront. Thank you!

1 Like

I think this idea could be good but the funding amount is excessive for it. More detail is needed on the complexity of the task as well.

1 Like

I agree lowered, still not sure this is good.

1 Like

I am an employee of OP Labs and speaking on my own behalf.

Regarding your following comment:

Can you explain how exactly this enhances technical decentralization? Are you sure that this even solves any problems? It would be very nice to have a clear explanation of the problem first and then how the solution solves the problem and how this solution is better than other possible solutions. To be honest this just sounds like a bunch of big words put together.

1 Like

Thanks, tynes for all your comments. I’ll make sure to have an answer for you, I rushed a few mission requests because of the deadline. I’ll take the next few days to polish all of this.


So reading the given link: Superchain Explainer | Optimism Docs

It seems like this is something that according to the official docs “can be done”.

Bedrock introduced the SystemConfig contract(opens in a new tab) which began to define the L2 chain directly with L1 smart contracts. This can be extended to put all information defining the L2 chain, onchain. Including generating a unique chain ID, key configuration values such as block gas limit, etc.

Once the chain data is entirely onchain, we can create a factory which deploys the configuration and all other required contracts for each chain. This can be extended further by making the contract addresses deterministic with CREATE2, meaning that given a chain config it is possible to determine all bridge addresses associated with that chain. This also enables chains to be interacted with without having to deploy their bridge contracts, making (counterfactual) chain deployment virtually free, and allowing chains to inherit standard security properties.

But isn’t this something to be done by the foundation/OPlabs?

Can just anyone do it? And if so not sure if this is fit for a mission request. Sounds more like something small that anyone can do?

1 Like

Agree with @Jepsen that this would be a small project and would require a much smaller budget and with @lefterisjp that it would probably be better suited as an internal OP Labs project, when they feel it actually solves a problem.

At the moment, I don’t think it would meaningfully contribute to Optimism’s technical decentralization.

1 Like

Following the comments here I’ll withdraw my support and thank many of the commentators here for their feedback and shared knowledge.