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

Remove the wrapping concept of assets #301

Closed
leighmcculloch opened this issue Feb 13, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #302
Closed

Remove the wrapping concept of assets #301

leighmcculloch opened this issue Feb 13, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #302
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@leighmcculloch
Copy link
Member

The docs discuss the concept of "wrapping" assets with contracts, but this concept is old from long ago and no longer part of the vocabulary we or others should be using to talk about deploying Stellar Asset contracts.

When a Stellar Asset Contract is deployed, it doesn't wrap the Stellar Asset. Wrapping would create a second token that can be wrapped/unwrapped or exchanged for the original asset.

The Stellar Asset Contract is an API to control the one-and-only Stellar Asset. The contract allows you to take the asset from trustlines directly out of Stellar classic Accounts, and send it to other classic accounts, or send it to contracts, etc. It's first-class access to assets on Soroban.

Unfortunately we left this concept of 'wrapping' in the CLI by accident and I think it led to proliferation of that terminology and concept here. The command has been deprecated in the CLI and we need to refocus how we talk about the Stellar Asset Contract everywhere.

Page I think needs updating:

Related:

@leighmcculloch leighmcculloch added the bug Something isn't working label Feb 13, 2024
@briwylde08
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks Leigh, I'll get this wording removed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants