I would like to add a few points.
Subassets is a thing that we added which allowed for arbitrary strings for asset names, like ASSET.WHAT01.DA.FACK.123.$500. It was reasonably discussed and put into the code. It complicated the codebase a great deal and made the UI design for sites and apps supporting Counterparty much harder. But we discussed it reasonably.
I had concerns about scams and bad uses, for example, if someone owned the top-level asset and they let people register subassets and then they stole the best idea and implemented it as the top-level asset. The top-level asset owner could say, “Turn in your ASSET.SUCCESSFUL for ASSET at a rate of 2:1. We’re the true vision of this idea we’re stealing.”
But that’s not what’s happened. I was wrong. Subasset names have not been used in this manner. But the proponents of subasset names were also wrong. Only 180 subassets have been registered. We complicated the codebase and how apps implement their UI’s for seeming very, very little new usage.
So, from that experience, I think we should take away that concerns around “bad usage” or “scams” are generally very overstated. And usually deployed by people who are acting more in the capacity of a politician than a developer.
We can observe on other meta-layer protocols, like Omni, that allows three letter asset names that there actually not a big reputation or scam risk to three letter asset names. Please find me examples. This person, for example, has registered: BTC, ETH, LTC, NXT.
Have you heard of many stories where people are getting scammed left and right? I haven’t. I expect no one, literally no one, is going to confused “LTC” on Counterparty for actual LTC on Litecoin. Or “DOW” on Counterparty for actual DOW shares on NASDAQ.
I think simply that allowing three letter asset names is as simple logically and code-wise as ABC. And that projects and, yes, even speculators will find them useful. I think a higher registration fee will address most concerns around “squatting” (usage in my eyes).
Remember that there are only 180 subassets registered and 70,000 or so assets total. I’m not sure why it would be such a bad thing to have people registering three letter asset names. In fact, I think it would be a very good thing.
I think it’s absurd for a protocol to ban words for non-technical reasons, but if it helps assuage concerns (even knowing that it’s not a problem on Omni, and people owning things like BITCOIN on Counterparty hasn’t been a problem), we could reserve the top 50 cryptocurrency tickers by market cap, like ETH, LTC, XMR, etc. I think it’s unnecessary censorship, but I don’t see why a higher registration fee and some restricted asset names doesn’t fully address the issue.
Please use evidence and actual examples, base your argument in the history of observable use and not on your wildest ideas of what could go wrong. You’re arguing against ABC. I don’t get it TBH.