Why does Batch not implement Disclosure?

Questions
1

Hi there, I noticed that the Batch interface does not require Disclosure, and the Batch implementation doesn’t include Disclosure either. Is there any reason for not adding this?

2

Hi Huw,

Thank you for your question. Currently, we are about to make a new release, but we’re definitely open to revisiting your suggestion in our next one. I have added an issue here for us to track.

The reasons why we haven’t (yet) added it are:

  1. Lack of Use Cases: So far, we haven’t encountered use cases that necessitate exposing this feature via the interface.
  2. Alternative Approach: We’ve argued that explicit disclosure might be a more effective approach.
  3. Contract Lifespan: Given that these contracts have a short lifespan, integrating this feature can be conveniently deferred until a clear need arises.
  4. Own Implementation: Users can provide their own implementation of a Batch that implements Batch.I and Disclosure.I, should it suit their needs.

We would be interested in understanding specific requirements you might have for letting the Batch.I interface require the Disclosure.I interface.

Thanks and Best Regards,
Johan

3

We have a potential usecase where we have a service provider (app operator) which is only a technology service provider, not a financial service provider. They only serve a UI through which users may view their assets and perform some transactions, however, the service provider may not act as asset owner, custodian, issuer, or depository. We just want to send contracts to the service provider’s node, so they can serve the contract payloads through API/UI. Currently, our prototype solution adds additional mandatory observers field onto Holdings, Batches and Instructions (not via the Disclosure interface).

2 Likes