Right now one of the biggest blockers for many people to use Status regularly is the lack of custom token support. The issue has been discussed time and again and we all seem to agree that this feature needs to exist because everyone else has it, but that the problem of fake tokens remains and that we’d need some kind of curation. That curation was never defined, to my knowledge. I’d like to propose making use of Kleros’ token TCR: Kleros · Tokens² Curated List
This is a list of disputable submissions for this exact purpose - verified and validated tokens are added to the list, and can be challenged, evidence can be presented for and against, and the public court of Kleros will then decide the token’s fate. The list is shorter than our built-in one right now, but I would recommend not using it for sourcing the list of tokens, but to:
- Allow users to add ANY token as every other wallet does
- Using this TCR to pull in the status of such tokens, i.e. validated, rejected, pending, challenged.
This gives us on-chain validation of tokens added by users, allowing us to treat everything not hardcoded and not TCR-validated as “unsafe”, while everything we’ve vetted and added or pulled via Kleros’ TCR can be marked safe.
Sounds like a great use case of the TCR. It’s a reasonably straightforward way to allow tokens to be added to your wallet with a strong degree of trust that the information is correct.
It also takes the ‘burden’ of token selection out of your hands. If a user wants one, they add to the TCR, it goes through the process and assuming it’s not challenged, they quickly have access to that token in the wallet.
Very nice idea!
I’ve given this a little more thought and it seems the more efficient route may be to pull the current TCR as is now. This way, there is already a decent pool of tokens verified as ‘safe’. Whilst adding a new token from a user point of view would be reasonably painless and quick.
- They submit the project token of their choice to the list with all necessary details
- Assuming it’s not challenged, 3 days later it is verified as legit
- It could then be added to the wallet with almost no further input from the Status team other than the wallet integration itself.
Users benefit from a reasonably quick turnaround for legitimate projects to be available on the wallet whilst Status benefits from no longer needing to personally vet each project. That part has been ‘outsourced’ as it were by Kleros jurors / challengers and so on.
Just my late night thoughts.
Hmm, that would dramatically reduce the number of available tokens in Status right now. While we definitely don’t have the userbase that would find this disruptive at this moment, it could cause some discomfort to people who have gotten used to the current offering. In general I’d agree that this would be a better way forward, removing a big chunk of maintenance from our hands.
“that would dramatically reduce the number of available tokens in Status right now”
Is this due to the tokens currently on Status wallet not being on the Kleros TCR at the moment?
If so, one could assume the Status team has already done due diligence on those and adding them to the list should not incur any fees (other than gas) or challenges.
Users, could be incentivized to list those that are not yet on our TCR but are on Status wallet.
All in all, that seems like a minor sticking point we could work around with the upside of using the previously stated method likely to bare fruits reasonably quickly.
Mmm, good point. Might make for a good opportunity to clean house. Remove scams / fails and whatnot.
I think it’s a good UX opportunity, too. (@hester)
Wallet team, what do you think? (@rachel?)
Yep, if you’re confident they are all good it shouldn’t be an issue and if any are found to be scammy (maybe they weren’t when you first added them but became so later) then it would clean everything up.
Moving forward, it’d probably save you time and effort in the long run going to the full TCR integration.
Do you have a link toward the tokens currently listed on Status? @Bruno
We currently have 204 tokens registered. That would not be that hard to look at tokens you have but which are not in the registry and add those (we put a 1M PNK reward to be distributed to submitter in proportion of their submissions, so if you have a list you already curated, someone is gonna take advantage of it and add them to get a share of the reward). This way we can ensure that no tokens are removed.
The registry does not verify the token if the project is a scam or has failed. It just verifies information are correct (name, ticker, logo and addresses). If you want to avoid scam and failed projects, you could create a “Status compliant” badge (give a list of criterion a token should satisfy). Badge would require higher deposits, so I would not only list tokens with badges but you could those tokens on the top of the search and search results.
@clesaege yes, full list is here.
I should note that work is in progress to let users add their own tokens (finally!) but I’d still love to see verification/confirmation/trust badges implemented via your registry, to add that extra worthiness factor to the various tokens.
Adding custom tokens should be in 0.13.0, we are planning to release it today.
…aaand custom tokens support is released. The latest Status for iOS or for Android has this under “Wallet” → “•••” → “Manage assets” → “⊕ Add custom token”
Thanks. The logo you have are compressed, so we would still need humans to find the high definition ones, but the list is not that long, so it shouldn’t be a problem to have all of them added.
I see you have some non-ERC20 tokens listed (BNB). Do you list everything or just ERC20?
That works, I’ve been able to add PNK (but no logo).
What do you think of also adding tokens in the T2CR?
Some of tokens need to be removed, hence why a TCR is better than what we have now, as some are dead or replaced, like BNB.
Great. Would you like to have a call or discuss further about integrating? I can facilitate such a task if you guys are about.
I guess it is a question to @andrey