This article is compiled and edited based on the tweets of X user Loon @Web3Loon.

top up

Users need to recharge first, but the recharge is not directly to Unisat's wallet address, but directly destroys the#BRC20tokens (officially it is locked in your wallet, but no one should be able to spend this money, right? ), and record the recharge amount and address in its database.

For example: if the user wants to recharge 100 million $sats, Unisat will erase the note with 100 million on it and make it blank. At the same time, it will record the xxx address in the database and recharge 100 million Sats.

exchange

Database calculation

Pack and upload Swap records to the chain at intervals

During the exchange process, there is a phenomenon of front running. Since all transaction records are concentrated in the centralized database, there are potential risks. This could lead to transactions being manipulated by centralized authorities or other malicious parties, resulting in losses.

Anyone who has played Ethereum Dog knows that every time you buy or sell, there is always a robot that rushes to trade first, resulting in losses. The entire Swap process is calculated by a centralized database. If Unisat does evil, he will be the biggest trap. Judging from the information released so far, there is no mechanism to restrict Unisat from doing this.

withdraw

Currently, the "black module" is used, that is, the user needs to initiate a withdrawal request and wait for someone to deposit sufficient amount before the deposited funds can be withdrawn to the user. In the extreme, if no one deposits it, it will never be able to withdraw it.

Another option is the "white module", which is to directly issue a "new protocol BRC20" with a denomination that matches the withdrawal amount to the user, but other indexers will not recognize this "new protocol BRC20", so the implementation of the "white module" is far away No deadline.

Disadvantages:

1. Unisat destroyed the BRC20 assets, and you can check on the browser that the balance of the BRC20 owner has decreased.

This violates the logic of general transactions, because normally, A should transfer money to B, but B in this transaction is a non-existent address, causing the BRC20 asset to disappear permanently. evidence:

2. Due to this special module design, the underlying design does not support BTC for gas, and can only use BRC20 tokens as handling fees (currently the chosen one is sats, Lorenzo said that other tokens may be used later), and also Direct trading pairs between BRC20 and BTC are not possible.

This makes the path to monetization more complex. Unless other alternatives are adopted, such as issuing second-layer BTC tokens (Lorenzo said that projects with ideas can come to him).

After experiencing it for a few days, I found that the current Swap does have various limitations and is not very easy to use, so that I rarely open that page myself😂

Ps: The content of this article is based on communication with many big guys, and Lorenzo participated in the space to answer questions. Please correct me if there is anything wrong. I am also a heavy BRC20 holder. I hope that the BRC20 ecosystem will develop better, break the circle, and let more people know and participate.