CIP-0010 Discussions

[Ryun1]

Moving discussions from #906 over here.

from @perturbing and @rphair

• That said, I do wonder how this will pan out in the future, as there is no clear guideline.
• Furthermore, currently labels are forever, are all registered labels still actively used?
• think that CIP-0010 might benefit from an update with whatever clarification might be necessary as project tag requests start coming in again.
• I think one addition to CIP-010 could be the addition of the test that there is a reasonable chance that others (people/tooling etc) observing this metadata might want clarity. For example, any project that has an app where users connect their wallet, the wallets might want to leverage the knowledge of this CIP. But applications that are isolated (for whatever reason), do not (liquidation on a lending protocol for example).
• We could hash (even with a VRF if needed for proper randomness), their PR, and modulo reduce it to fit in the range and have that as their number

[rphair]

@Ryun1 personally I don't have any dispute with the way things are done today since we have a lightweight system that relies upon a minimum of work. But I don't consider the current informal system to be future-proof.

I do think the majority of the current labels will never be publicly used. Beyond that, the easy process to obtain official labels with company name & web site represent a potential for misuse to convey a false legitimacy.

Because of the uncertainty I think it would be best to put this & your list of questions out to the wallet dev community... since they produce most of the tooling that would interpret this metadata. What definition of legitimacy and longevity would they prefer & what would they look for in the validation process and registry format?

[rphair]

p.s. asked on Discord to the Wallets Working Group here.