Proposal and Concerns about validity and (lack of) trust in BEAM Assets Swaps

I have concerns about the validity of many assets in asset swap. It’s also a deterrent to achieving trust in the BEAM ecosystem in general.

Anyone can create an imaginary asset, needing just a name and getting a number for reference. It doesn’t even require a real life contract address, does it?

If it is deemed censorship resistant to allow such ability, I think there is a compromise which would improve the concept.

My Proposal
I propose that there be a Verification Status, somewhat like the blue tick in Twitter or Facebook.

For example, anyone can apply to acquire verification status (and maybe even to remove the status) for an Asset.

This may involve paying a nominal fee, or locking BEAM/X, etc.
This would then generate a proposal which could be voted on by the BEAMX holders.

Then, in the Assets Swap, we could see which assets have been validated by the community and yet we could still swap assets which are not validated, at our own risk. The “tick” doesn’t guarantee true validity, but if the community wants it it is probably likely to be valid.

Furthermore, there should be more filters in the Assets Swap, such as filter “Valid Assets” assuming my idea gets implemented.

Another example is that it would be handy to be able to apply logical conjunction of filters (AND), not just logical disjunction (OR), and maybe even also XOR.


when assets were originally added to beam there was a highly centralized and unfair system of checkmarks.
After LOTS of community complaints it was finally removed.

have a look at the solution suggested here. i think this should address these concerns, while also keeping core values (decentralization and censorship resistance) in mind: CA metrics and auditability - #6 by dbadol


I think the discussion from Telegram is now converging nicely:

  1. We definitely need some solutions to make the use of CAs safer for new users (or for users that won’t or can’t do much DYOR about them).
  2. We need however to preserve the fundamental concepts of the project (decentralization, no censorship, etc.).
  3. The solution that seems to be the best one is the one where only manually selected CAs are displayed (see link given in the previous message). And where a complete set of "trusted lists"of CAs can be selected at once (one of these lists can be one agreed upon and voted on by the DAO).