How XCM will actually be used with XCMP

[kckyeung]

Reposting from Internal Parity Forum:

@shawntabrizi

Now let’s assume that on Ethereum, moving a dex swap token into a privacy layer is basically 0 overhead.
While on Polkadot, we should expect at least 12 seconds for an XCMP transfer between the two parachains.

This means, if we are trying to highlight scenarios where a user can quickly transfer some token to a dex, swap some token, then move it to a privacy layer to hide their trades, and then back to some final account, we will be so far behind Ethereum it is not even reasonable.

@shawntabrizi

Well, Parachains won’t actually be THAT focused, at least, they will all likely provide “good enough” solutions to common operations like DEX (if they manage multiple tokens), smart contracts to a certain extent (for extending funtionality on their chain), etc…

I feel like such a conclusion is narrowly focused on the use case of DeFi or DEXes. It’s normal for these businesses to be time-sensitive, but for other kinds of usages where waiting for execution isn’t really a big deal such as identity verification (like Kilt or Litentry), then I don’t really see why they can’t continue to focus on being a parachain that focuses on a single use-case. I don’t foresee them ever adding an on-chain DEX, if that’s what the implications are from this thread.

But I do see the need for other DeFi or DEX chains adding on an on-chain identity verification pallet, should they want to verify the identity of the origin for every transaction they make. It would be too costly in terms of time to use XCM and communicate with an DID parachain to get an individual verified for each tx. This would sound to me that for applications that are time-critical, they’ll really be deploying their own versions of various services on their own chain, and if this is the direction that we’re heading towards, then it would make sense to encourage non-time-critical applications to provide a pallet-as-a-service to time-critical parachains.