Based on Ethereum experience, there will be many scam coins on Beam too. And they might be harder to spot, due to confidentiality.
Maybe some basic transparency about CA’s general status could be provided, so that people can do basic due diligence about them.
Possible metrics to be provided (to be discussed):
Already provided: Asset ID, Name, socials, existing supply, etc.
Supply immutably capped or not.
Date of creation.
Supply history.
Number of holders.
Volume of transactions (in number and/or volume) since creation / in the last 12 months / last month / last week.
Other?.…
Edit:
REMOVED FROM LIST ABOVE:
Holders distribution: A full histogram would be too much, but maybe provide some quartiles (e.g. 25%/50%/75% of the coins are in the hands of x/y/z holders).
Update from the Telegram discussions and comments:
Independently of what could be technically possible, anything related to holders distribution is a no go, as it goes against the core idea of Beam as a privacy chain.
Even only the number of holders of a CA seems, for many, to be too much information to be publicly available. Also, it’s an unreliable information anyways, as it can easily be gamed using multiple wallets.
On the other hand, date of creation of a CA and its supply history (i.e. when were the tokens minted, and how much were minted each time) are interesting and acceptable pieces of information to provide for a CA.
The information about capped/uncapped supply is also important, of course.
Remark: Supply history is probably already available, and BeamAssets.com will try to look into that for its next version.
Still think we need validation in the gui somehow. Either DAO voted or via a centralized Dapp the user chooses to trust to display checkmarks or something. Too many scam clones. And especially on dappnet it makes it nearly unusable. Nobody wants to (if they even realize the potential to be scammed like that in the first place) have to figure out which CA is the one they’re looking for. And with CA minting costs moved so low, would help to be able to rank/hide a bunch via a toggle
——that’s against the ethos of decentralization and open blockchains
Block the name
——Squatters
Make the user turn on what they want
——How will they identify which of two similarly named ones is the real one
Have a dao/community whitelist or multiple whitelists that you can choose to trust your UI to with a checkmark or something else. Just for the front end. Can still trade any asset with a warning which can be hidden permanently after first seeing it
The wallet starts displaying Beam and BeamX only (those are the only “official” ones, with check mark and all). Displaying any other CA (if possible, wallet-wide) would only happen when their ID is explicitly whitelisted somewhere (in the settings, I suppose).
To make it easier for users, entire sets of CAs can be whitelisted at once by selecting some predefined lists of trusted CAs (e.g. the “Beam Team list”, the “BeamAssets.com list”, the “DAO-voted list”, etc.).
imo there is no need for actual checkmarks. Because the user sees only assets that are activated either by themselves or by a whitelist they subscribe to. Checkmarks suggest a false impression of being 100% valid beyond even the slightest doubt (and really nobody can verify that).
A comment on the UI-implementation(maybe slightly off-topic here):
It would be nice to activate new CAs directly in the dapp interfaces instead of deep in the settings menu. And add via typing asset ID instead of an infinitely long dropdown lists.
E.g. if you go to the dex, you should be able to enter the asset ID of any asset that is not whitelisted. Then a short warning, “add new assets on your own responsibility…”. If the user continues, the asset should then be added to the user’s personal whitelist.
Seconded.
On the backend side(blockchain level) there is 0 restriction
On the frontend UI side we do a DAO vote to agree upon which asset ids are valid and should be put in the whitelist or sort.
