It would be great to hear what you think before formalizing a CIP.
If the asset owner holds the entire supply and the asset is not locked, then allow the owner to reset the supply (e.g. set the supply at zero) and change the divisibility status.
This can be achieved with a function reset(asset, issuance, divisibility). Asset must be the name of an asset owned by address making the call. Issuance is the new total number of issued tokens. Divisibility is boolean; true if divisible, false if indivisible.
Thousands of good asset names are registered by squatters and intended to be resold. Unless this CIP (or something similar) is implemented these names will always be limited by the initial parameters set by the squatters.
Most squatted assets have issuance at zero, so for these there is obviously no need to reduce the supply. However, quite a few good assets, e.g. GOLD, have issued a large amount of tokens, which may limit a potential use case.
Most squatted assets are divisible. There are at least two use cases where this causes problems:
- Token represents a trading card (or a coin) and a seller puts an order at the DEX. A buyer grabs a fraction of a unit to troll/harm the seller by effectively destroying his card/coin.
- An asset owner pays a daily distribution. A XCP fee applies per recipient. An attacker can send dust amounts of the asset to thousands of addresses once, thus forever make it too expensive for the owner to pay daily distributions.
I believe the reset function should be limited to cases where the owner holds the entire issuance (every token) and the asset is not locked. Otherwise, changes in these fundamental properties would maybe lead to uncertainty and technical challenges (?)