When issuing a new asset, is it expected that the transfer of the asset to the distribution account and the locking (setting weight to 0) of the issuing account take place in one transaction or, can the asset be issued and the account locked in a later transaction, allowing for more of the asset to be issued in the interim?
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
There are no specific requirements regarding issuing account locking. It's up to the issuing entity whether to lock account or not. Master key weight can be changed at any time, thus most anchors prefer to lock account only when everything was double-checked and the asset is ready for the tokensale.
Also consider changing account thresholds instead of master key weight. If you plan to use ALLOW_TRUST operation, make sure that your signers total weight satisfies the low_threshold level.
answered Nov 19, 2018 at 14:27
-
Thank you for your response. While I do know that this can be done, I'm more interested in understanding what the perception would be of a token being issued in multiple batches over, say, a few months, before the account is locked. Would this be viewed as suspicious? Thanks for the heads-up re thresholds. The docs suggest changing all thresholds and master weight to 0, to lock an account. Is this equivalent to what you are suggesting? Commented Nov 20, 2018 at 12:18
-
I don't think that batched tokens issuance will be viewed as suspicious. Current circulating supply is what really matters. For example, check MOBI supply. Commented Nov 20, 2018 at 12:25
-
To lock the account you can either set master key weight to 0, or set all thresholds to, say, 10. The effect is the same. So for simple cases when you have only one signer in the account, just set master weight to 0. Commented Nov 20, 2018 at 12:42