-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 422
Description
Description
I am bringing this up after a conversation with @moul, discussing Effective Gno
#1000. Essentially, the issue is how we refer and differentiate the following concepts: tokens, created by following the GRC20 (ERC20) spec, and tokens, issued by the native banker, which are (going to be) IBC-transferrable.
I propose that we call banker-issued ones (native) Coins, and GRC20/721 Tokens. Why?
- We use
std.Coin
&std.Coins
throughout the codebase, - Coins are unique by two factors: they can be issued by the banker, and can be IBC transferrable,
- Tokens are a well-known term, and people usually associate them with the GRC20/721 standard (ie (non) fungible tokens).
If we don't do this, and still refer to Coins as tokens, we will end up with a weird & possibly confusing situation:
- Native tokens = coins (in and outside of code).
- (non-native/normal/...) Tokens = GRC20/721s.
The opposing point for this proposal is the fact that the Cosmos ecosystem uses the term native tokens, for ATOM, and other chains, ie like here. The way to match Cosmos would be to change Coins
to Tokens
in code & in the current docs.
What do you think?
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
Type
Projects
Status