-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 84
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
[AIP-73][Discussion] Dispatchable token standard #374
Comments
Compilation of my comments thus far from elsewhere@thepomeranian I've provided some commentary on this topic in several places but it's gotten disjointed so I'll start with a compilation of relevant posts, mostly in conversation with @davidiw and @runtian-zhou On aptos-labs/aptos-core#12490:
On aptos-labs/aptos-core#12635:
SummaryGenerally, I am concerned with how behaviors like tax on transfer will affect DeFi accounting and break correctness guarantees currently offered by existing standards. Generally, however, these concerns are alleviated so as as there exist two APIs related to transfers:
Questions on current implementationPer Telegram discussion with @davidiw:
Question 1. Is it correct to assume that this can be used in a transfer context with the condition
Question 2. Could this be extended for the case |
@alnoki ,
Yes. All calls to
The window for the first release, 1.12, is likely missed. I think my concern here is that if there is any dynamics in the call, this may be hard to guarantee, while minimum is likely more easily guaranteed. We could add the API, but figured it would be good to discuss if both are needed. |
@davidiw Please do! Looking forward to it :) FYI one implementation could be a version that just uses the minimum deposit under the hood, and "refunds" any extra back to the sender |
Ahh, this could be done, there's a tradeoff, of course, that the user could be double taxed... not sure that's better but maybe in some cases it is. |
@davidiw could this be avoided by doing some kind of forced direct transfer for the refund portion? E.g. in current implementation I've seen all kinds of admin-level permissions to do things like this, seems doable Just flagging that for such a case then events should only be emitted after the refund |
AIP Discussion
Summary
Right now the Aptos Framework defines one single fungible_asset.move as our fungible asset standard, making it hard for other developers to customize the logic they need. With this AIP, we hope that developers can define their custom way of withdrawing and deposit for their fungible asset, allowing for a much more extensible way of using our Aptos Framework.
Read more about it here: https://github.com/aptos-foundation/AIPs/blob/main/aips/aip-73.md
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: