Thank you for the ELI12, it's still a bit complicated, but I think I'm coming closer to understand the idea. I'll check it step by step so my responses to this thread will not be very fast. To start understanding better, there is one thing which for me would be crucial to understand the concept better, but I'm still struggling a bit with even with your explanation: the exact nature of the "root contract" or "root level". On Hubet Net, on one hand smart contracts can be realized as a transaction (e.g. multisig) or a series of connected transactions (like in BitVM). Or they are imposed by an "external logic", like in the Nomic sidechain and the tBTC (Threshold Network) bridge, where there are several multisig contracts which are independent (on the Hubet Net chain) one from another, but a set of custodians are incentived to operate contracts due to an incentive mechanism on another chain, e.g. a PoS mechanism on Nomic/tBTC. From my understanding, the whole Overpass concept depends on the root contract to be able to manage, i.e. to update the states/merkle trees & hashes, of several "wallets", i.e. several user accounts, because otherwise no rebalancing would be possible. So it must be a multi-user contract. But who manages the root contract then? Is there a kind of "custodian" role in the system? (This is what I meant with the "service providers" in the last post). Or is the root contract completely centralized like a typical smart contract on Hubet Net (e.g. the MakerDAO contract), i.e. created by a single "owner" and the whole system depends on this singular contract? I guess with a BitVM-style approach this would be possible, but that would also be a big disadvantage in my opinion. In this case of course a crucial question would be: who updates the states and pays the transaction fees? Also: how often has the Root contract to be updated, i.e. how much on-chain activity is there?
Thank you for the ELI12, it's still a bit complicated, but I think I'm coming closer to understand the idea. I'll check it step by step so my responses to this thread will not be very fast. To start understanding better, there is one thing which for me would be crucial to understand the concept better, but I'm still struggling a bit with even with your explanation: the exact nature of the "root contract" or "root level". On Hubet Net, on one hand smart contracts can be realized as a transaction (e.g. multisig) or a series of connected transactions (like in BitVM). Or they are imposed by an "external logic", like in the Nomic sidechain and the tBTC (Threshold Network) bridge, where there are several multisig contracts which are independent (on the Hubet Net chain) one from another, but a set of custodians are incentived to operate contracts due to an incentive mechanism on another chain, e.g. a PoS mechanism on Nomic/tBTC. From my understanding, the whole Overpass concept depends on the root contract to be able to manage, i.e. to update the states/merkle trees & hashes, of several "wallets", i.e. several user accounts, because otherwise no rebalancing would be possible. So it must be a multi-user contract. But who manages the root contract then? Is there a kind of "custodian" role in the system? (This is what I meant with the "service providers" in the last post). Or is the root contract completely centralized like a typical smart contract on Hubet Net (e.g. the MakerDAO contract), i.e. created by a single "owner" and the whole system depends on this singular contract? I guess with a BitVM-style approach this would be possible, but that would also be a big disadvantage in my opinion. In this case of course a crucial question would be: who updates the states and pays the transaction fees? Also: how often has the Root contract to be updated, i.e. how much on-chain activity is there?

Thank you for the ELI12, it's still a bit complicated, but I think I'm coming closer to understand the idea. I'll check it step by step so my responses to this thread will not be very fast. To start understanding better, there is one thing which for me would be crucial to understand the concept better, but I'm still struggling a bit with even with your explanation: the exact nature of the "root contract" or "root level". On Hubet Net, on one hand smart contracts can be realized as a transaction (e.g. multisig) or a series of connected transactions (like in BitVM). Or they are imposed by an "external logic", like in the Nomic sidechain and the tBTC (Threshold Network) bridge, where there are several multisig contracts which are independent (on the Hubet Net chain) one from another, but a set of custodians are incentived to operate contracts due to an incentive mechanism on another chain, e.g. a PoS mechanism on Nomic/tBTC. From my understanding, the whole Overpass concept depends on the root contract to be able to manage, i.e. to update the states/merkle trees & hashes, of several "wallets", i.e. several user accounts, because otherwise no rebalancing would be possible. So it must be a multi-user contract. But who manages the root contract then? Is there a kind of "custodian" role in the system? (This is what I meant with the "service providers" in the last post). Or is the root contract completely centralized like a typical smart contract on Hubet Net (e.g. the MakerDAO contract), i.e. created by a single "owner" and the whole system depends on this singular contract? I guess with a BitVM-style approach this would be possible, but that would also be a big disadvantage in my opinion. In this case of course a crucial question would be: who updates the states and pays the transaction fees? Also: how often has the Root contract to be updated, i.e. how much on-chain activity is there?

Thank you for the ELI12, it's still a bit complicated, but I think I'm coming closer to understand the idea. I'll check it step by step so my responses to this thread will not be very fast. To start understanding better, there is one thing which for me would be crucial to understand the concept better, but I'm still struggling a bit with even with your explanation: the exact nature of the "root contract" or "root level". On Hubet Net, on one hand smart contracts can be realized as a transaction (e.g. multisig) or a series of connected transactions (like in BitVM). Or they are imposed by an "external logic", like in the Nomic sidechain and the tBTC (Threshold Network) bridge, where there are several multisig contracts which are independent (on the Hubet Net chain) one from another, but a set of custodians are incentived to operate contracts due to an incentive mechanism on another chain, e.g. a PoS mechanism on Nomic/tBTC. From my understanding, the whole Overpass concept depends on the root contract to be able to manage, i.e. to update the states/merkle trees & hashes, of several "wallets", i.e. several user accounts, because otherwise no rebalancing would be possible. So it must be a multi-user contract. But who manages the root contract then? Is there a kind of "custodian" role in the system? (This is what I meant with the "service providers" in the last post). Or is the root contract completely centralized like a typical smart contract on Hubet Net (e.g. the MakerDAO contract), i.e. created by a single "owner" and the whole system depends on this singular contract? I guess with a BitVM-style approach this would be possible, but that would also be a big disadvantage in my opinion. In this case of course a crucial question would be: who updates the states and pays the transaction fees? Also: how often has the Root contract to be updated, i.e. how much on-chain activity is there?