[Feature] Bond contract - Investigate Clone vs Naive

[CjHare]

Feature Description

The BondFactory uses a naive approach, that deploys a new Bond contract every time. Another approach is to instead create a clone.

Clones reduce the initialisation cost, but slightly increase general call costs. This means with volume there's a turning point where the cost saving of the deploy pales in comparison to additional cost to each call.

Create a comparison table between the naive and clone versions of the Bond through different version of the BondFactory.

q) What is the turning point? How many guarantors are needed to warrant a naive approach?

q) Should both a naive and clone factory be provided? (as the costs are pushed onto different actors, deploy is the admin/treasury and usage the community)

Additional Information

OpenZepplin Clones
OpenZepplin Cones examples

[afkbyte]

happy to take this one on after the initial bond contract is merged :) I know berlin increased the costs of this but I remember when I was looking at the uniswap clone factory post-berlin the tipping point was ~1000 interactions. Ours should be less due to smaller bytecode size but will be fun to look into.

[CjHare]

happy to take this one on

Excellent 😁

I'm not certain of the best/quickest method for measure the gas, although I have noticed that a HardHat node can be run with config that outputs the transaction details (includig gas cost logged config exmaple. )
There are also additional option for setting the hardfork, creating a script that deploys to a HardHat node could be an option, but it's entirely your call 🙂