Latest proposals (Updated: Mar 15 2024):
Self issuance:
I like the self deploy function as a new operation. If we can scale the “op” field early on and figure out how to support it… it could pay dividends in the future.
would like to hear all the cons though.
(￣▽￣) ~~
This is unisat proposal for stablecoin, so the depolyer or the holder can be only the one mint the stablecoin.
The Main problem this is not hard coded into blockchain this text fill, an arguments or logic that every indexer have to follow in order if it to work.
51% atk can happen to indexer ecosystem and cause massive confusion and double spending, there are alot of cases for double spending happening that have not been reported.
In my opinion, we should build a consensus for index to make decisions and follow.
also we should have and another consensus on ordinal it self.
Indexer agreement only helps if the rules specify which indexers count and how disagreements are resolved. A 51% majority can change the commonly accepted BRC-20 state, but it cannot prevent Bitcoin-valid transactions that violate that interpretation. Any stablecoin design should define deposits, minting, redemption, and recovery under conflicting indexer views before relying on the peg.
A stablecoin needs a defined peg mechanism, not just restricted minting. The proposal should specify what backs it, who can redeem it, and how redemption works; otherwise holders have no protocol-level path to value. Indexer agreement can make interpretations consistent, but it can’t prevent Bitcoin reorganizations or enforce a peg. The rules should also define how indexers handle conflicting histories and reorgs.