Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Problem: there's no consensus on terminology used for tokens #60

Open
yihuang opened this issue Sep 8, 2021 · 3 comments
Open

Problem: there's no consensus on terminology used for tokens #60

yihuang opened this issue Sep 8, 2021 · 3 comments
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation help wanted Extra attention is needed

Comments

@yihuang
Copy link
Collaborator

yihuang commented Sep 8, 2021

Context: #45 (comment)

We need to settle down on the terminologies used for different types of tokens:

  • ERC20 tokens on ethereum
    • ERC20 token
  • CRC20 tokens on Cronos
    • CRC20 token
  • cosmos native tokens on Cronos
    • coin
    • cosmos token
    • native token
  • The CRO native token on Cronos
    • CRO
    • gas token
@thomas-nguy
Copy link
Collaborator

thomas-nguy commented Sep 9, 2021

for gas token, I have been using a lot "evm token" as ethermint uses EVM_DENOM for the gas token denomination. But only internally in the code

@tomtau
Copy link
Contributor

tomtau commented Oct 28, 2021

for native tokens, also ICS20?

@tomtau tomtau added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation help wanted Extra attention is needed labels Oct 28, 2021
@tomtau
Copy link
Contributor

tomtau commented Oct 28, 2021

I guess this issue can be resolved by ADR + code refactoring if there's some inconsistent usage (do any of the terms leak into consensus-critical parts, such as network parameters?)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants