Token Design: Walking the transaction backchain vs Adding issuer as participant #Corda


Clyde DCruz
 

Since an essential part of the tokens lifecycle is redemption, does the regular approach of selective sharing of transactions + backchain resolution have any advantages over simply adding the issuer as a party to all transactions involving the token?

While designing a token, there are 2 available options:  

1. Don't keep the issuer as a participant to all transactions involving the token, issuer will need to verify the backchain during redemption
2. Keep the issuer as a participant to all transactions involving the token. 

Questions
1. In approach (1), does the issuer have to sift through less amounts of data as opposed to approach (2) ?
2. Does either approach have privacy / performance benefits over the other?


David Awad
 

an answer I heard from Matthew Nesbit (within R3): 

 

>    I believe the work is the same whether issuer sees all changes as they happen, or only as it resolves backchain. Just that time span of the loading is different