added a caip24 proposal for cosmos caip19 asset namespace to make cos… #2
Conversation
…mos asset references unique
theoboldfrazier
force-pushed
the
cosmos-caip-19-reference
branch
from
7675f6a to
87d8442
Compare
CAIPs/caip-24.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ### Cosmos chain ibc asset Asset Namespace | ||
|
|
||
| The asset namespace is called "ibc". It reference cosmos network blockchain inter blockchain channel assets. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be good to specify what data is used to determine the asset id. I know we're using base but I'm not sure if that's something Cosmos specific or just something that Osmosis chose to use.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added a section for IBC Asset Reference definition. base denomination seem to be more generally applied to the cosmos ecosystem.
https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/master/docs/architecture/adr-024-coin-metadata.md
| caip: 24 | ||
| title: Asset Reference for the cosmos Asset Namespace | ||
| author: Theobold Frazier | ||
| discussions-to: https://github.com/shapeshift/CAIPs/issues/1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The PR will need to be self-referenced when opening it in ChainAgnostic/CAIPs
Co-authored-by: 0xdef1cafe <88504456+0xdef1cafe@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: 0xdef1cafe <88504456+0xdef1cafe@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: 0xdef1cafe <88504456+0xdef1cafe@users.noreply.github.com>
| cosmos:osmosis-1/native:uion | ||
|
|
||
| # IBC Atom asset on the osmosis-1 chain | ||
| cosmos:osmosis-1/ibc:27394FB092D2ECCD56123C74F36E4C1F926001CEADA9CA97EA622B25F41E5EB2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like this, this make it close to the IBC minimal denom format https://github.com/osmosis-labs/osmosis-frontend/blob/0ab68011d3ad85221a8efdb256fb7674a0c34e9b/src/utils/ibc.ts
CAIPs/caip-24.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ### Cosmos chain ibc asset Asset Namespace | ||
|
|
||
| The asset namespace is called "ibc". It reference Cosmos network blockchain inter blockchain channel assets. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this standard work for single assets only or should it also handle pools format e.g IBC/<SrcChainID>/<DstChainID> ? If so, we should specify that the id might be id | sourceChainId/distchainId
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This standard was written to work for single assets. It appears this namespace "ibc" would work for pool formats, but the asset reference may be different unless there is a similar identifier produced for those pool assets.
I'm less familiar with cosmos pool assets, so I'm open to ideas.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, precisely, this will already work for pool formats as is. I'm just wondering whether or not it would make sense to mention that the asset reference might be of pool format.
With that being said, in the context of this CAIP, that might be irrelevant: a reference is a reference, and consumers of this CAIP can then parse it however they need depending on its format, so we could keep this standard simpler by not mentioning it! More agnostic this way.
Co-authored-by: 0xdef1cafe <88504456+0xdef1cafe@users.noreply.github.com>
…s into cosmos-caip-19-reference
Co-authored-by: Apotheosis <97164662+0xApotheosis@users.noreply.github.com>
…s into cosmos-caip-19-reference
Co-authored-by: Alexandre GOMES <17035424+gomesalexandre@users.noreply.github.com>
…s into cosmos-caip-19-reference
Co-authored-by: Apotheosis <97164662+0xApotheosis@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Apotheosis <97164662+0xApotheosis@users.noreply.github.com>
…mos asset references unique