Skip to content

Conversation

@cairoeth
Copy link
Contributor

@cairoeth cairoeth commented Nov 5, 2024

No description provided.

@cairoeth cairoeth requested a review from ericglau November 5, 2024 22:28
@socket-security
Copy link

socket-security bot commented Nov 7, 2024

No dependency changes detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

👍 No dependency changes detected in pull request

@ericglau
Copy link
Member

Are the "Stablecoin" and "Real-World Assets" tabs intended to be identical?

@cairoeth
Copy link
Contributor Author

cairoeth commented Nov 11, 2024

Are the "Stablecoin" and "Real-World Assets" tabs intended to be identical?

Yes -- pointing to same page.

@ericglau
Copy link
Member

Are the "Stablecoin" and "Real-World Assets" tabs intended to be identical?

Yes -- pointing to same page.

Do we expect these to become different at some point, in a way that is not backwards compatible? This question relates to semantic versioning of the external API. If we indicate that these are experimental, then that allows us to change them in the future without bumping the major version.

@cairoeth
Copy link
Contributor Author

Are the "Stablecoin" and "Real-World Assets" tabs intended to be identical?

Yes -- pointing to same page.

Do we expect these to become different at some point, in a way that is not backwards compatible? This question relates to semantic versioning of the external API. If we indicate that these are experimental, then that allows us to change them in the future without bumping the major version.

Yeah, these two tabs should be marked/labelled as experimental

Copy link
Member

@ericglau ericglau left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Initial comments

return opts.mintable || opts.limitations !== false || opts.custodian || opts.pausable || opts.upgradeable === 'uups';
}

export function buildStablecoin(opts: StablecoinOptions): Contract {
Copy link
Member

@ericglau ericglau Nov 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it make sense to just "extend" erc20.ts in some way to add limitations and custodian and whatever else is needed, without having to duplicate the code building logic of ERC20? I don't think this needs to be done for this PR though.

</label>
</section>

<section class="controls-section">
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

After this PR, we should consider whether this can just extend ERC20Controls.svelte in some way, similar to my other comment for the code building.

@github-actions github-actions bot mentioned this pull request May 3, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jun 19, 2025
This was referenced Aug 12, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2025
This was referenced Sep 16, 2025
This was referenced Oct 29, 2025
This was referenced Nov 11, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants