- Tokenly is interested in this for token.fm and our other projects in a variety of ways.
- We actually had intended to do exactly this, but there are downsides - Mostly in that these assets won’t be grouped at the protocol level, so compatibility will be limited outside of Tokenly’s ecosystem (Or whomever creates that script and does the front-end work to support it)
- 300 subassets would run, at current prices, about $975 in BTC tx fees and XCP fees, vs. maybe $250 in btc tx fees alone with a non-protocol level system - That is too much if we want people to use this rather than just building non-standard layer 2 systems to accomplish this same thing. I like the .001XCP per unique.
- Every time an asset moves from one address to another, you’re increasing the size of the database almost as much as you are by creating a unique token type. If counterparty is going to succeed, it’s going to get a lot bigger and companies/projects using it will have to become more efficient at dealing with counterparty as it grows.
- I don’t think this is a real concern? We’ve literally never had anyone we deal with get confused between someone who owns the token vs. having a zero balance but issuing authority.