Community driven verified tokens

Hi Algonauts, I would like to see the community driven verification process for ASAs.

I have this proposal:

Lets create public list of ASAs to be verified. It may be something similar to GitHub - tinymanorg/asa-list: Tinyman - Algorand Standard Assets List , but with little more information. Mainly some description, project name, also list of testnet tokens.

Lets create a github that will be managed by the verification dao. This dao will work the way that if there is a pull request, the question will be raised to accept this PR. Using the vote coin standard, the verified tokens owners will vote with rule one verified asa owner is one vote. They may delegate their voting power to some other account. Lets give for the decision making long period - something between 1 week to 1 month. So that the dao governors can choose wisely. After the voting is closed, the PR will be merged.

This proposal has sense only if projects accepts it. So if you support this, please state it in the comment or tell how you could help to participate in this dao. Also lets please disscuss on which token categories should be verified and which not… Eg the community might choose to deny the gambling or meme coins…

This is an intesting idea. I’m not sure if it withstand the shibainu test ( army of shibinu ), but defenitally one that could be beneficial to the community.

i dont get the shibainu test… can you please elaborate more?

do you think that there is already more than half of fake verified tokens?

The “shibainu test” refers to the promotional model of that coin ( per it’s own white paper ). The idea was to get a very large set of individuals ( i.e. army ) that would work on promoting the coin regardless of it’s functionality ( i.e. none ).

I don’t know how many verified fake tokens are there. I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t have the ability to properly classify a token as fake or not.

I agree this is an interesting idea.

I would also strongly suggest any new project that would want to be on such a list to strictly follow ARC-3, which is the current standard to provide metadata for both fungible and non-fungible tokens.
Obviously, older projects cannot do it but I think it would be great that new project uses this standard.

the verification of ntfs complicate the thing quite rapidly… any suggestion to the original post how verification of nfts may be achieved?

in my point of view we must verify mainly usdc, usdt, stbl and such coins, so that user does not select different asset at some DeFi service when he wants to trade it…

for example there is one traded vote coin, but people are already creating many assets called vote coin. but if you go to algodex you want to have same asset id as when you swap on tinyman

btw i consider ARC-0003 as NFT definition… i have checked and fungibility is only in the title… the fungible nfts are called fractional nfts. Does the Circle or Tether comply with some standard how to issue fungible tokens?

Yes, ARC-3 is more akin to ERC-1155.
It is both for fungible and non-fungible tokens and new fungible tokens should follow it.

I realize the writing was not really clear. The notion of “pure NFT” and “fractional NFT” in ARC-3 were introduced to give names to specific cases. But ARC-3 assets may be a “normal” ERC-20-like fungible asset, not NFT nor fractional NFT.

Unfortunately Circle and Tether already issued their tokens so there is no way for them to follow it anymore…

Thanks for clarification… My missunderstandig was lead from the fact that the word fungible is stated in the standard only in the title… Perhaps if you want to extend the standard also for fungible tokens which makes the sense, we might add in the section Pure and Fractional NFTs some notion that each other assets that comply with this standard are considered fungible tokens (FT).