<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>waxwing wrote</title><author_name>waxwing (npub1va…knuu7)</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.now/npub1vadcfln4ugt2h9ruwsuwu5vu5am4xaka7pw6m7axy79aqyhp6u5q9knuu7</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.now</provider_url><html>Little update on Lichen: switching the onchain verification to BABE results in only a few onchain txs instead of 20-25 (so, a much smaller exit delay) and reduces onchain costs by about 7x in terms of bytes. Worst case attacks in terms of a mass exit can then allow scale of about 10k to 50k users with a single operator/hub. And fees kept in reserve are also far lower.&#xA;&#xA;Already got a long way through building this out using LLMs and there are further optimizations possible afaik such as duty free bits.&#xA;&#xA;Afaict the bottleneck in lichen is all with the hub(s): how much liquidity can they provide, at what price, and they need to stay fully online and available. Very easy for the user: they don&#39;t have to watch the bitcoin chain at all. It&#39;s like an LSP model, but way better imo.&#xA;&#xA;The synergy between BABE and lichen appears to be very strong,  enough that I would claim that switching from BitVMX changes this from &#39;possible&#39; to &#39;practical&#39;. Still got to do a lot of security analysis, but, optimistic.</html></oembed>