How do I destroy/retire an asset so it's no longer available on Counterparty?

I have created an asset and I need to retire it. I am thinking about making it callable, but I don’ know the call date and I don’t know the call price as yet, but I would like the option to retire the asset if I am in possession of it.


How is this possible?

You cannot “destroy” an asset, if by that you mean remove extant shares of that asset, you can however remove the possibility of further issuing an asset with the following command:

[tt]issuance --source=SOURCE --asset=ASSET --description=‘LOCK’[/tt]

Two following along questions:


1. By placing "LOCK" in the description do I lose the ability to place other text in the description as well? I am seeking to place more details about the asset via a website URL for verification.


2. By placing "LOCK" in the description, is the asset still tradeable or does "LOCK" stop all future exchange of the asset?

[quote author=Bountyful link=topic=143.msg967#msg967 date=1393702214]
Two following along questions:


1. By placing "LOCK" in the description do I lose the ability to place other text in the description as well? I am seeking to place more details about the asset via a website URL for verification.
[/quote]

Currently it locks the description space as well, but we are considering changing this right now.

[quote]

2. By placing "LOCK" in the description, is the asset still tradeable or does "LOCK" stop all future exchange of the asset?
[/quote]

The asset can still be traded.

[quote author=cityglut link=topic=143.msg968#msg968 date=1393703758]
[quote author=Bountyful link=topic=143.msg967#msg967 date=1393702214]
Two following along questions:


1. By placing “LOCK” in the description do I lose the ability to place other text in the description as well? I am seeking to place more details about the asset via a website URL for verification.
[/quote]

Currently it locks the description space as well, but we are considering changing this right now.

[quote]

2. By placing “LOCK” in the description, is the asset still tradeable or does “LOCK” stop all future exchange of the asset?
[/quote]

The asset can still be traded.
[/quote]


Our problem is that if the asset issued is eventually redeemed for the physical entity backing it (a stock certificate for example) then we need a way to prevent the asset from being traded either by delisting through retirement. If the asset is still listed, some people may assume it is still trading.


For example, if our company goes bankrupt, we are usually delisted from the stock exchange listings. However, if our asset is no longer valuable, there’s no way we can remove that asset from Counterparty and anyone can still trade the asset. Using the call function seems like a way to bring all the assets back to us, but delistinig that asset and retiring it would prevent claims that the asset is still available for trading.

[quote author=Bountyful link=topic=143.msg971#msg971 date=1393708732]
[quote author=cityglut link=topic=143.msg968#msg968 date=1393703758]
[quote author=Bountyful link=topic=143.msg967#msg967 date=1393702214]
Two following along questions:


1. By placing “LOCK” in the description do I lose the ability to place other text in the description as well? I am seeking to place more details about the asset via a website URL for verification.
[/quote]

Currently it locks the description space as well, but we are considering changing this right now.

[quote]

2. By placing “LOCK” in the description, is the asset still tradeable or does “LOCK” stop all future exchange of the asset?
[/quote]

The asset can still be traded.
[/quote]


Our problem is that if the asset issued is eventually redeemed for the physical entity backing it (a stock certificate for example) then we need a way to prevent the asset from being traded either by delisting through retirement. If the asset is still listed, some people may assume it is still trading.

For example, if our company goes bankrupt, we are usually delisted from the stock exchange listings. However, if our asset is no longer valuable, there’s no way we can remove that asset from Counterparty and anyone can still trade the asset. Using the call function seems like a way to bring all the assets back to us, but delistinig that asset and retiring it would prevent claims that the asset is still available for trading.
[/quote]

First, I misunderstood your question before: you can change the description after you lock an asset, just not when you lock it. Having locked the asset, you would need to then do a new issuance to update the description - this does not invalidate the locking, of course.

I am not quite clear on what your exact concern is, but based on your example, it sounds like you would like to destroy or retire a user’s share of your asset, in the event that you go bankrupt, i.e. at any given time. There is indeed no way to do this (though callable assets are a decent approximation of what you’re describing) and from a buyer’s perspective, if an asset issuer is able to destroy the asset for which the user paid at any time it is a “risky purchase”.

Perhaps you can give another example of the problem you are trying to address.

Maybe we don’t have much of a problem, but I’ll share with you our business model and let me know the limitations of Counterparty to support it.


Our company buys and sells “Hard Assets” that include Gold, Diamonds, and other gems.


We are issuing an asset on Counterparty with a unique identifier for each hard asset that our customer purchases. Our customers will be able to trade these “digital assets” on Counterparty. Any customer that purchase a digital asset will be able to redeem that digital asset for the hard asset. The person who redeems the digital asset must show proof of ownership of the digital asset to make a redemption and take delivery of the physical version of the asset. For example, someone taking delivery of Gold must show they own the Counterparty GOLD asset. However, when they take ownership, we need to retire the Counterparty asset and asset-name or they current owner be able to keep trading that digital asset to someone else who may not be aware that the physical asset, backing the digital asset, no longer exists.


Using callable, we can call the asset back to us, the issuers at a price and at some date, but that may not be best fit. We could call the asset back for 0 BTC in 1 year, but ideally, we need to be able to EXPIRE/RETIRE the asset name once it is no longer valid.


I hope this makes better sense/clarity as to our use case?

[quote author=Bountyful link=topic=143.msg979#msg979 date=1393723274]
Maybe we don’t have much of a problem, but I’ll share with you our business model and let me know the limitations of Counterparty to support it.


Our company buys and sells “Hard Assets” that include Gold, Diamonds, and other gems.


We are issuing an asset on Counterparty with a unique identifier for each hard asset that our customer purchases. Our customers will be able to trade these “digital assets” on Counterparty. Any customer that purchase a digital asset will be able to redeem that digital asset for the hard asset. The person who redeems the digital asset must show proof of ownership of the digital asset to make a redemption and take delivery of the physical version of the asset. For example, someone taking delivery of Gold must show they own the Counterparty GOLD asset. However, when they take ownership, we need to retire the Counterparty asset and asset-name or they current owner be able to keep trading that digital asset to someone else who may not be aware that the physical asset, backing the digital asset, no longer exists.


Using callable, we can call the asset back to us, the issuers at a price and at some date, but that may not be best fit. We could call the asset back for 0 BTC in 1 year, but ideally, we need to be able to EXPIRE/RETIRE the asset name once it is no longer valid.


I hope this makes better sense/clarity as to our use case?
[/quote]

It seems that in your business model, once ASSET is redeemed  for its corresponding hard asset, it is in your possession again. And, more to the point: a user can obtain the hard asset only if he redeems ASSET. Thus, ASSET can only be put back into the ecosystem if you put it there; you exclusively control the supply of ASSET, and so as long as you don’t sell shares of ASSET for which you do not have the corresponding hard asset, there shouldn’t be a problem.