# \[brc-20\] Optimization

**URL:** <https://l1f.discourse.group/t/brc-20-optimization/33>\
**Category:** General\
**Tags:** brc-20\
**Created:** [September 19, 2023, 7:22pm UTC](https://l1f.discourse.group/t/brc-20-optimization/33 "2023-09-19T19:22:41Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cbspears](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/l1f.discourse.group/cbspears/32/14_2.png) [@cbspears](https://l1f.discourse.group/u/cbspears)\
**Post date:** [September 22, 2023, 2:30pm UTC](https://l1f.discourse.group/t/brc-20-optimization/33/3 "2023-09-22T14:30:04Z")

</div>

IMO metaprotocols like BRC20 should utilize flags or fields within an inscription envelope, or even define alternative envelopes entirely.

I would like to get Psifour’s opinion on the specific metaprotocol field implementation suggested by Casey. I believe that he thinks it could be handled more elegantly, so I would urge caution on embracing that field at this time.

---

_[View the full topic](https://l1f.discourse.group/t/brc-20-optimization/33)._