Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

KIP-0031: Fungible token Metadata #63

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

CryptoPascal31
Copy link

@CryptoPascal31 CryptoPascal31 commented Sep 28, 2024

The goal of this KIP is

  • to propose a standard way for token issuers to include meta-data in their token modules codes.
  • a way to allow wallets, frontends ... to retrieve and use these data

This KIP is an early draft. I'm not sure that all needs are covered.
Reviews, pros, cons, comments, improvements, and suggestions are welcome and desired

GH Formatted Markdown document link:
https://github.com/CryptoPascal31/KIPs/blob/kip-031/kip-0031.md

GH formatted interface code:
https://github.com/CryptoPascal31/KIPs/blob/kip-031/kip-0031/fungible-meta-v1.pact

And example:
https://github.com/CryptoPascal31/KIPs/blob/kip-031/kip-0031/example-token.pact

EDIT: Added 3 new paragraph to address questions


@daplcor
Copy link

daplcor commented Oct 1, 2024

I am not sure 100% about circulating supply, it might be easier/better to have a trusted ecosystem project run a daily or weekly update service for this but max supply is definitely good to capture. Worth a wider discussion at the very minimum. I'd love to hear from wallets, dexs, and other services that pull in token information.

@CryptoPascal31
Copy link
Author

CryptoPascal31 commented Oct 2, 2024

I am not sure 100% about circulating supply, it might be easier/better to have a trusted ecosystem project run a daily or weekly update service for this but max supply is definitely good to capture. Worth a wider discussion at the very minimum. I'd love to hear from wallets, dexs, and other services that pull in token information.

The idea behind this is to have "Best effort approach". Nothing is mandatory, and based of good faith and interpretation of tokens issuers. It let the responsibility for tokens to report the information themselves. Several cases could happen:

  • Some tokens may have always total-supply = circulating-supply => They just return the same value
  • Some tokens may decide that circulating-supply is not relevant, or impossible to estimate => They return 0.0
  • Some tokens contracts may have appropriate counters and/or special internals to account the supply => They can use (circulating-supply) to return the exact value to users. (eg $BRO token, or future Linx wrapped tokens)

=> But in all cases, it's at least better than nothing.

Note that this is not incompatible with third party scripts, that could provide this information too, and spot scammers. Anyway 3rd party projects may have some limitations for exacting data if they are not aware of the internals of the token. Think for example about $BRO, whose the "non-circulating" supply is kept on a special account... and a dumb script won't be aware of that.

@daplcor
Copy link

daplcor commented Oct 6, 2024

I believe that's fine as we are talking best case for circulating supply and something is better than nothing. I would however like to consider removing the color field, as I don't feel like it adds anything.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants