# \[Wallet Council\]\[Breakoutgroup\]\[Opt-in\]

**URL:** <https://forum.algorand.co/t/wallet-council-breakoutgroup-opt-in/11441>\
**Category:** Council/ATAC\
**Tags:** asa, opt-in\
**Created:** [February 19, 2024, 9:36am UTC](https://forum.algorand.co/t/wallet-council-breakoutgroup-opt-in/11441 "2024-02-19T09:36:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jacopo](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.algorand.co/jacopo/32/2760_2.png) [@Jacopo](https://forum.algorand.co/u/Jacopo)\
**Post date:** [February 20, 2024, 1:10pm UTC](https://forum.algorand.co/t/wallet-council-breakoutgroup-opt-in/11441/4 "2024-02-20T13:10:38Z")

</div>

I’d like to know more about the ARC-12 vs ARC-58 approach. Aside from lsig vs stateful contract.

ARC-200 is very good for programmable transactions, but to use smart contract based tokens instead of an ASA for a plain token just to drop the opt-in requirement from me isn’t the correct way forward, ASA default security is way more preferable and efficient. Instead apps should be required to better construct atomic groups when interacting with a wallet that isn’t opted into the ASA by adding the optin txn.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.algorand.co/t/wallet-council-breakoutgroup-opt-in/11441)._