Open
Description
CAIP-19 only works for assets controlled/registered at a smart contract; non-asset smart contracts are not addressable by it. It feels like asset_type should not be generalized to contract_type, particularly since there are already many users and adopters in the wild using it specifically as a translation-layer/interop tool for asset-specific interactions/queries.
This implies to me that a new, distinct superset CAIP would be worth defining for general-purpose block-, transaction, and/or contract-addressing, particularly since in many of the already-registered namespaces assets are a subset of contracts with different validation rules/addressing systems, etc.
Shout out to @sposth for raising this