1

Issuing accounts should last as long as the asset, the typical case being "as long as we can forsee".

Setting masterWeight=0 and using other accounts for transacting on behalf of the account seems like good practice, because these other accounts can be removed from the signers list, should their keys become compromized.

Is there any valid reason not to set masterWeight=0 on an asset issuing account ?

1

Multisig is indeed a good practice for an issuing account and you definitely want a consistent procedure for removing/replacing signers, especially if you want to be well prepared for the "omg, I have to remove that leaked signer asap". Since the invalidating procedure of the master key (masterWeight=0) differs from invalidating additional signers (setOptions,signerWeight=0), I'd eliminate that special case right away.

But that's still not the answer to your question... well, we have a good reason to do so and nobody yet came up with a reason not to, so I guess the answer is: no, there is no good reason not to set it to zero after setting up multisig.

0

Setting masterWeight to 0 of issuer means you don't want to increase the asset number. So the total asset circulation will remain constant and which is equal to before setting masterweight to 0. Its all based on requirement. If you want to fix your total number of asset then lock the issuer account by setting masterweight to 0 and no more asset will be created.

  • Having a constant asset supply is one use case, it's not the only one, I mentioned another reason for having masterWeight=0, I can think of many other use cases. – Max L. Jun 3 at 21:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.