CPS-0003? | Smart tokens

[rphair]

Cloned from commit history of defunct branch of @szist's original (abandoned) #382.

We decided at the CIP meeting today to resuscitate this to support cooperative work on these candidate CIPs:

• CIP-0113? | Programmable tokens #444
• CIP-0125? | Arrestable native assets #832
• CIP-0143? | Interoperable Programmable Tokens #944

@colll78 @Crypto2099 have offered to check technical & ecosystem content to ensure it remains valid 2+ years after the original submission. I've cleaned up some missing items and removed all TBDs, which further review is welcome to continue:

• Use cases > "add more examples"
• Identifying smart tokens > "add more considerations"
• Open Questions > ...

---

(rendered from this PR's branch)

[fallen-icarus]

An open question needs to be added: Can we introduce smart tokens without significantly increasing Cardano's attack surface?

As @colll78 has pointed out:

99% of exploits in Ethereum are a result of ERC-20 token programmability

[rphair]

thanks @fallen-icarus - I was just reading your #944 (comment) and noting this question to keep discussing for all CIPs related to this one. I've added it to the Open Questions section here: 97d90b8

[colll78]

Looks great to me!

[rphair]

CIP meeting yesterday emphasised that we are waiting for @Crypto2099's broad & historical perspective to see if any updates need to be made to the background material, motivation, etc. based on the 2 years that have passed since original proposal, as per #947 (comment) - once we've provided ample opportunity for that, we can merge this: likely at the next CIP meeting. Thanks @colll78 for providing your own confirmation.

[Crypto2099]

Overall, aside from these relatively minor feedbacks, I think this CPS is well-written and deserves to be ratified and merged into the main CIP body of work as programmable/smart tokens on Cardano seems to continue to be a hot topic of debate and development and having a centralized place to identify various solutions will be helpful.

[rphair]

@Crypto2099 @Ryun1 I've cleaned up the 2 outstanding issues from today's CIP meeting.

I also added myself as a less significant co-author because otherwise the unique "posthumous" activity of this document would go without a visible hand in reconstituting all this material & ensuring that future updates will make sense until it's obvious from straightforward GitHub history. Anyone who feels this is inappropriate please indicate so & I'll remove it (cc @szist).

[rphair]

p.s. @Ryun1 @Crypto2099 @perturbing since this is the first time a candidate CIP or CPS PR has been added to the YAML front matter, I need to point out the changes in 565e374 & hold up for review:

Although it would make more sense to put ? after the CIP name; e.g.:

Proposed Solutions:
    - CIP-0113?: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/444
    - CIP-0125?: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/832
    - CIP-0143?: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/944

... since this would properly & rigorously emphasise that these documents aren't CIPs yet, still:

• without double quotes I think it's a YAML syntax error;
• the (perhaps) required double quotes around everything before the : looks awkward & ugly;
• even if it's not a YAML error the punctuation still "looks ugly" and will leave lots of readers not understanding what it means. 😅