Unambiguous name for ERC-20 on Celo chain

Following up on: CIP 0037 - Unambiguous name for ERC-20 on Celo chain - Discussions · Issue #181 · celo-org/celo-proposals · GitHub

We need to decide on what to call standard tokens on Celo platform. Calling them just ERC-20 tokens have already caused quite a bit of confusion with users since they assume they can just send/receive these tokens on Ethereum too.

We don’t really need governance approval for this, we just need Wallet and DApp developers to agree on the name. If we all start using the same consistent name, it will become standard fairly quickly.

Calling all community members and project owners to vote:

  • Moola - @Patrick
  • Ubeswap - @igm
  • Celowallet.app @jmrossy.
  • Celo Terminal - me
  • Valora
  • plock.fi
  • The Celo
  • Explorer
    (Please tag others, I couldn’t find everyones usernames).

Please select up to 3 options that you would be happy with as a standard name. If you want to add another option, please reply and i will edit the poll.

  • ERC-20 (i.e. no distinction from Ethereum ERC-20)
  • CRC-20
  • cERC-20
  • CST (Celo Standard Token)
  • CFT (Celo Fungible Token)

0 voters

2 Likes

I’d also like to see us come to consensus on how to refer to tokens that implement debitGasFees and creditGasFees (eg in StableToken.sol) in order to be usable as a fee currency. I don’t believe there’s an existing CIP that explicitly defines what a fee currency token must implement right?

1 Like

As I understand only CELO and cXXX tokens can be used for gas fees right? Regular tokens can’t be used because they don’t have oracle price information, even if they implemented those debit/credit gas fees functions.

CELO and cXXX tokens already seem to have fairly standard names:

  • CELO (Celo native asset)
  • cXXX (Celo Stable Coins, or Celo Stable Tokens)
1 Like

It’s just CELO and cXXX at the moment, but assuming a token implements those functions and has an oracle price, there’s nothing that would prevent governance from whitelisting non-cXXX tokens. I could see there being a future where non cXXX tokens are considered as fee currencies and it’d be nice to be able to point to a CIP rather than the Celo docs.

But this is a ways out and less pressing than the original discussion here, we can always address this down the line.

2 Likes

Aesthetically I like CRC-20 but I find the name implies that there’s a set of CRCs mirroring the ERCs when in fact no such set exists.

The CST and CFT names make me think there should be some meaningful difference from the ERC20 standard, otherwise why invent a new name.

So I voted for cERC-20 and ERC-20 :slightly_smiling_face:

3 Likes

@igm who i think is from ubeswap

Regarding Trevers Question

Gasable Tokens or Feeable Tokens?

actually for this one sounds like we should just make a CIP just for the sake of documenting it since it’s actually about the interface.

This was exactly my reasoning also. First choice cERC-20, second choice leave it as it is.

cXXX has a clear precedent in existing tokens any clearly denotes cUSD as “Celo USD”, cEUR “Celo Euro”. cERC-20 would then clearly imply “Celo ERC-20” standard.

Since there is literally no difference and we want to encourage development using regular EVM development toolsets. We don’t want beginners to be searching through @openzeppelin looking for a CRC-20 standard to import.

In real terms, ERC-20 refers to an industry standard on EVM compatible chains and I think it’s clear to everyone. If there’s an association with Ethereum lingering there, I see that as a strength. Celo doesn’t lean enough on it’s EVM compatibility in my opinion, unlike say xDAI, which I feel did more positioning as a BSC alternative recently.

Finally, CRC has a legacy meaning for computer scientists and should be avoided. I have PTSD from dreaded CRC-failures on the last disk of Doom or something PKZipped onto 17 floppies.

3 Likes

Thanks everyone who already voted and participated. Please keep sharing this among rest of the Celo community especially among DApp, Wallet and Tools developers. (@Yaz if you can help share this to wider list of stakeholders that will also be helpful).

Ideally we get to at least 50 voters to have confidence that enough of the stakeholders have seen and voted on this. That way we increase the chances for truly adopting the new name.

One thing id like to say here is that this is not a “renaming” of erc-20. internally and in docs these are and will still be erc-20 tokens.

This is a branding initiative to help reduce consumer/user confusion. An analogy would be how Wifi is technically IEEE 802.11.

1 Like

Also would like to point out that there are a few examples of chains creating their own name for erc-20. such as binance and tron. TRC-20

1 Like

@aaronmgdr That’s good to know! For anyone curious, here’s Binance’s spec: BEPs/BEP20.md at master · binance-chain/BEPs · GitHub

I think it’s worth noting that Binance needed to create a new name and spec because they’ve extended the standard ERC-20 interface. If we did the same with a new spec that extends ERC-20 - for example by including the transferWithComment method our stable tokens have anyway - and included it in the CIP repo, then I’d be more open to CRC-20. What I’d like to avoid is a precedent where we just swap the ‘E’ for ‘C’ in Eth spec ids but they don’t actually reference anything.

One more ping here, to try to get the number of total voters up.

If we can’t get at least 50 voters, we are probably way too below any kind of quorum to really push for a name change, so we should probably just stick to ERC-20 as a name in that case.

I like cToken or cAsset. We already saw cMCO2 adopt this prefix, and soon cBTC and cETH will be launched. I voted for cERC-20 but that’s a mouthful.

Protocol Stablecoin/Stable Token could be used for Mento assets (eg cUSD or cEUR)

1 Like

Thanks for posting zviad!

I think cERC-20 is the way to go and would safe a lot of lost coins before we implement something at address level!

1 Like

Meant to click CRC-20

One last ping here for more votes. And let’s set a deadline: The poll will close on June 1st. So get your votes in (or re-adjust your votes) until June 1st.

After that, the results will be final. We didn’t quite get to the full quorum of at least 50 voters but I am hoping we can get a bit more participation before June 1st deadline.

Thanks everyone who participated. Poll is now closed.

The winner is: cERC-20

Let’s slowly update our DApps, Wallets, Documentation, etc to go with the new name. Consistency is more important than the name itself, so it will be greatly appreciated if everyone cooperates and accepts the results of this poll :slight_smile: