ERC-7943: Universal RWA Interface (uRWA)

ERCs
6

First of all, great job on the proposal, it adds great value to make it token-agnostic.

I think it’s difficult to select which permissioning features to include and which to intentionally exclude from the standard.

If we’re aiming for a truly minimal implementation, one could argue that some parts can be omitted, as it could be reduced to a transfer-check standard. Similar to ERC-902 and ERC-1462.

  1. Exclude recall, and achieve the functionality through mint and burn. Specificity and simplicity are lost.
  2. Exclude isUserAllowed; the same functionality is achieved with isTransferAllowed. Error-handling specificity is lost.

I then believe there are two possible paths for this standard:

  1. Universal token transfer check, non-opinionated on the admin or functionality standpoint. Additional ERCs can be built on top to standardize whitelisting, pausing/unpausing, access-control, or other compliance mechanisms.
  2. Universal RWA token, with core token functionality embedded: forceTransfer/recall, freezeTokens, frozenBalance. Compliance functionality should be built on top, similarly to the previous option.

I believe a security/RWA/permissioned token standard should be opinionated on the core token functionality.

I propose the following changes:

  1. Add mint and burn methods to the interface. Specify that isUserAllowed(to) must be run on mint, and that isUserAllowed(from) must not be run on burn—T-REX-like.
  2. Specify that isUserAllowed(to) must be run on recall and that isUserAllowed(from) must not be run on recall.
  3. Add freezeTokens, unfreezeTokens, and frozenBalance methods, plus TokensFrozen and TokensUnfrozen events. In my experience, token freezing is always required by regulators. It can be implemented as a separate module, but if we assume isUserAllowed provides the necessary specificity, token freezing should be required too. burn and recall should unfreeze tokens as needed.
  4. Prepend errors with an ERCX prefix, similar to ERC-6093.
  5. Rename recall to forceTransfer, and Recalled to ForcedTransfer. Recalled has a meaning of returning or withdrawing; I would stick to the core action and call it a forced transfer, regardless of the underlying reason it’s used. This is obviously a nit.
3 Likes