Add draft SEP: Contract Metadata URI#1967
Open
farbodghasemlu wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a new draft SEP for a minimal, optional contract interface,
metadata_uri() -> String, that lets a Soroban contract advertise a URI
pointing to a document describing it. It standardizes the pointer only:
transport-agnostic (https, ipfs, ...) and payload-agnostic (the document
format is intentionally out of scope).
Motivation: there is currently no standard way for a contract to advertise
where its metadata lives. SEP-50's token_uri is per-token, SEP-1 is
asset-focused and DNS/https-bound, and SEP-46 is Wasm-level and fixed at
build time. As a result builders improvise incompatibly (e.g. Tansu reusing
the SEP-1 format, Soroban Domains building its own key-value db). This SEP
standardizes the discovery layer so wallets, explorers, and indexers can
find a contract's metadata uniformly.
Scope note: this intentionally covers only the pointer so it can stand on
its own. A generic, non-asset contract metadata format is a larger, separate
effort and is left to a future SEP.
Discussion: https://github.com/orgs/stellar/discussions/1966
Per the SEP process I have not self-assigned a number (SEP: TBD) and placed
the file in ecosystem/. Happy to adjust the filename, function name, or
framing per editor guidance.