Should we move withdrawMultiple from SablierV2Lockup to batch contract?

[andreivladbrg]

The current withdrawMultiple does not take a to address parameter.

Also, we have made the withdraw function public, allowing anyone to call it if the to address is the recipient.

Thus, we can completely remove it from SablierV2Lockup to reduce the size.

We would need to call getRecipient for each streamId, which might slightly increase the gas cost. However, since the purpose of withdrawMultiple is not to be as optimized as possible, would it be a good idea to move it to the batch contract?

@sablier-labs/solidity

[PaulRBerg]

Interesting idea.

Have we bumped into the contract size limit with LockupDynamic or LockupTranched? If not, I think it should be fine to keep it where it is now. Moving this function to the Batch would not confer us (Sablier) any benefit, since we would pay the gas for deploying this logic on-chain in any case (

[smol-ninja]

Have we bumped into the contract size limit with LockupDynamic or LockupTranched?

Not with the optimized build.

[smol-ninja]

I like the idea. It reduces the contract size by the following margins (optimized builds):

1. LockupDynamic: -300
2. LockupLinear: -1200
3. LockupTranched: -1000

However, since

• it doesn't have any direct benefit at the moment as we are below the limits.
• it increases the gas cost of withdrawMultiple

I suggest to not implement it right now but we keep it in mind for the future when we hit the contract size limit.

[PaulRBerg]

Great. And I agree, it's a good idea to keep in our back pocket.

I suppose the unit for those margins are bytes?

[smol-ninja]

Yes.