0081 XLS-81d: Permissioned DEXes

[mvadari]

Title:       Permissioned DEXes
Revision:    3 (2024-12-02)

Author:      Mayukha Vadari

Affiliation: Ripple

Permissioned DEXes

Abstract

Decentralized Exchanges (DEXes) are revolutionizing finance due to their ability to offer significant benefits such as intermediary elimination, lower transaction costs, enhanced security, and user asset custody. These advantages align perfectly with the growing demand for efficient financial systems. However, a major hurdle hinders wider adoption by traditional institutions: the anonymity of a DEX makes it difficult to comply with Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) regulations.

This challenge highlights a critical need for the development of a permissioned system within DEXes. Such a system would allow institutions to adhere to regulations while still benefiting from the core advantages of blockchain technology.

This proposal introduces a permissioned DEX system for the XRPL. By integrating permissioning features directly within the DEX protocol, regulated financial institutions gain the ability to participate in the XRPL's DEX while still adhering to their compliance requirements. This approach avoids the drawbacks of isolated, permissioned tokens or private blockchains, ensuring a vibrant and liquid marketplace that facilitates seamless arbitrage opportunities. Ultimately, this permissioned DEX system paves the way for wider institutional adoption of XRPL, fostering a more inclusive and efficient financial landscape.

1. Overview

This proposal builds on top of XLS-80d, Permissioned Domains, as Permissioned Domains are needed to handle the permissioning aspect.

We propose:

• Modifying the Offer ledger object.
• Modifying the OfferCreate transaction.
• Modifying the Payment transaction.

This feature will require an amendment, tentatively titled featurePermissionedDEX. The the orderbook and pathing-related RPCs will also need to be updated.

1.1. Background: The Current State of Permissioning and Compliance on the XRPL

The XRPL has made significant strides toward a compliance-by-design framework, incorporating several features to enhance transparency and control. These tools aim to facilitate regulatory adherence while preserving the platform's decentralized ethos.

They include:

• Deposit Auth: Offers granular control over incoming funds, allowing issuers to define specific conditions for accepting deposits.
• Authorized Trustlines: Enables precise management of asset trustlines, providing issuers with greater oversight over asset distribution.
• Clawback: Provides a mechanism for issuers to reclaim issued assets under specific circumstances, enhancing control and risk mitigation.
• Freezing: Allows accounts to be restricted from sending or receiving funds, aiding in compliance with regulatory requirements.
• Multisign: Introduces additional layers of authorization, enhancing security and compliance for sensitive transactions.
• Payment Paths: Offers flexible transaction routing, which can be leveraged for compliance purposes, such as ensuring funds pass through specific intermediaries.

While these features provide an excellent foundation for compliance, they fall short in one crucial area: the use of the DEX.

1.2. Terminology

• Offer Crossing: Two offers cross if one is selling a token at a price that's actually lower than or equal to the price the other is offering to buy it at.
• Offer Filling: Two offers fill each other if the trade executes and the sale goes through. Offers can be partially filled, based on the flags (settings) of the offers.
• Permissioned DEX: The subset of the DEX that operates within the rules of a specific domain.
• Open DEX: The un-permissioned DEX that has no restrictions.
• Permissioned Orderbook: An orderbook that operates within the rules of a specific domain.
• Open Orderbook: An un-permissioned orderbook that has no restrictions.
• Permissioned Offer/Payment or Closed Offer/Payment: An offer/cross-currency payment that can only be filled by offers that are a part of a specific domain.
• Open Offer/Payment or Unpermissioned Offer/Payment: An offer/cross-currency payment that is able to trade on the open DEX or potentially in permissioned DEXes, but doesn't have any restrictions itself.
• Valid Domain Offer/Payment: An offer/cross-currency payment that satisfies the rules of a domain (i.e. the account is a domain member). This must be a permissioned offer.

1.3. Basic Flow

1.3.1. Initial Setup

• Owen, a domain owner, creates his domain with a set of KYC credentials.
• Tracy, a trader, is operating in Owen's regulatory environment and has strict regulatory requirements - she cannot receive liquidity from non-KYCed accounts. She has one of Owen's accepted KYC credentials, and will only be placing permissioned offers.
• Marko, a market maker, wants to arbitrage offers in Owen's domain, as there is often a significant price difference inside and outside. He obtains one of the KYC credentials that Owen's domain accepts. He will be placing both permissioned and open offers.

1.3.2. Trading Scenario 1

• Tracy places a permissioned offer on the XRP-USD orderbook. There are no other offers on that orderbook that are a part of the domain.
• Marko notices that there is a significant price difference between Tracy's offer and the rest of the orderbook. He now submits a permissioned offer to cross and fill Tracy's offer.

1.3.3. Trading Scenario 2

• Marko has placed open offers on the XRP-EUR orderbook.
• Tracy places an offer on the XRP-EUR orderbook that crosses one of Marko's offers. Her offer cannot be filled by his, since hers is a permissioned offer and his is an open offer.

1.4. How Domains Work

A permissioned offer will only be filled by valid domain offers.

An open offer can be filled by any open offer on the open DEX, but cannot be filled by a permissioned offer. Likewise, any permissioned offer cannot be filled by an open offer.

2. On-Ledger Object: Offer

The Offer object tracks an offer placed on the CLOB DEX. This object type already exists on the XRPL, but is being extended as a part of this spec to also support permissioned DEX domains.

2.1. Fields

As a reference, here are the existing fields for the Offer object.

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Internal Type	Description
Account	✔️	string	AccountID	The address of the account that owns this offer.
BookDirectory	✔️	string	Hash256	The ID of the offer directory that links to this offer.
BookNode	✔️	string	UInt64	A hint indicating which page of the offer directory links to this entry, in case the directory consists of multiple pages.
Expiration		number	UInt32	Indicates the time after which this offer is considered unfunded.
LedgerEntryType	✔️	string	UInt16	The value 0x006F, mapped to the string Offer, indicates that this is an offer entry.
OwnerNode	✔️	string	UInt64	A hint indicating which page of the owner directory links to this entry, in case the directory consists of multiple pages.
PreviousTxnID	✔️	string	Hash256	The identifying hash of the transaction that most recently modified this entry.
PreviousTxnLgrSeq	✔️	number	UInt32	The ledger index that contains the transaction that most recently modified this object.
Sequence	✔️	number	UInt32	The Sequence value of the OfferCreate transaction that created this offer. Used in combination with the Account to identify this offer.
TakerPays	✔️	object	Amount	The remaining amount and type of currency requested by the offer creator.
TakerGets	✔️	object	Amount	The remaining amount and type of currency being provided by the offer creator.

This spec proposes deprecating the BookDirectory and BookNode fields and adding the following:

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Internal Type	Description
DomainID		string	Hash256	The domain that the offer must be a part of.
BookDirectories	✔️	string	Vector256	The IDs of the offer directories that link to this offer.
BookNodes	✔️	string	STArray	Hints indicating which pages of the offer directory links to this entry, in case the directories consist of multiple pages.

2.1.1. DomainID

A permissioned offer has a DomainID field included.

An open offer does not include a DomainID field.

2.2. Offer Invalidity

A permissioned offer on the orderbook can become invalid if:

• The domain specified by the DomainID field is deleted.
• The credential that allows the offer's owner to be a member of the domain expires or is deleted.

An invalid offer will be processed similarly to an unfunded offer, where it is deleted if and when processed/crossed.

3. On-Ledger Object: DirectoryNode

The Offer object tracks an offer placed on the CLOB DEX.

The DirectoryNode ledger entry type provides a list of links to other entries in the ledger's state data. A single conceptual Directory takes the form of a doubly linked list, with one or more DirectoryNode entries each containing up to 32 IDs of other entries. The first DirectoryNode entry is called the root of the directory, and all entries other than the root can be added or deleted as necessary.

This object type already exists on the XRPL, but is being extended as a part of this spec to also support permissioned DEX domains.

There are three types of directories: owner directories (for the objects an account owns), offer directories (for offers in the orderbook), and NFT offer directories (for NFT offers). The proposed modifications only concern offer directories.

3.1. Fields

As a reference, here are the existing fields for the DirectoryNode object.

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Internal Type	Description
Flags	✔️	number	UInt32	A bit-map of boolean flags enabled for this object. Currently, the protocol defines no flags for DirectoryNode objects. The value is always 0.
Indexes	✔️	array	Vector256	The contents of this directory: an array of IDs of other objects.
IndexNext		number	UInt64	If this directory consists of multiple pages, this ID links to the next object in the chain, wrapping around at the end.
IndexPrevious		number	UInt64	If this directory consists of multiple pages, this ID links to the previous object in the chain, wrapping around at the beginning.
LedgerEntryType	✔️	string	UInt16	The value 0x0064, mapped to the string DirectoryNode, indicates that this object is part of a directory.
RootIndex	✔️	string	Hash256	The ID of root object for this directory.
TakerGetsCurrency	✔️	string	Hash160	The currency code of the TakerGets amount from the offers in this directory.
TakerGetsIssuer	✔️	string	Hash160	The issuer of the TakerGets amount from the offers in this directory.
TakerPaysCurrency	✔️	string	Hash160	The currency code of the TakerPays amount from the offers in this directory.
TakerPaysIssuer	✔️	string	Hash160	The issuer of the TakerPays amount from the offers in this directory.

This spec proposes these additions:

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Internal Type	Description
DomainID		string	Hash256	The domain that the offer directory is a part of.

3.1.1. DomainID

A domain has its own set of orderbooks.

3.2. Object ID

The proposed modification is in bold.

There are three different formulas for creating the ID of a DirectoryNode, depending on which of the following the DirectoryNode represents:

• The first page (also called the root) of an Owner or NFT Offer directory
• The first page of an Offer directory
• Later pages of either type

The first page of an Offer directory has a special ID: the higher 192 bits define the order book, and the remaining 64 bits define the exchange rate of the offers in that directory. (The ID is big-endian, so the book is in the more significant bits, which come first, and the quality is in the less significant bits which come last.) This provides a way to iterate through an order book from best offers to worst. Specifically: the first 192 bits are the first 192 bits of the SHA-512Half of the following values, concatenated in order:

• The Book directory space key (0x0042)
• The 160-bit currency code from the TakerPaysCurrency
• The 160-bit currency code from the TakerGetsCurrency
• The AccountID from the TakerPaysIssuer
• The AccountID from the TakerGetsIssuer
• The DomainID of the orderbook, if applicable

The lower 64 bits of an Offer directory's ID represent the TakerPays amount divided by TakerGets amount from the offer(s) in that directory as a 64-bit number in the XRP Ledger's internal amount format.

If the DirectoryNode is not the first page in the directory, it has an ID that is the SHA-512Half of the following values, concatenated in order:

• The DirectoryNode space key (0x0064)
• The ID of the root DirectoryNode
• The page number of this object. (Since 0 is the root DirectoryNode, this value is an integer 1 or higher.)

4. Transaction: OfferCreate

The OfferCreate transaction creates an offer on the CLOB DEX. This transaction type already exists on the XRPL, but is being extended as a part of this spec to also support permissioned DEX domains.

4.1. Fields

As a reference, here are the existing fields for the OfferCreate transaction.

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Internal Type	Description
Expiration		number	UInt32	Time after which the offer is no longer active, in seconds since the Ripple Epoch.
OfferSequence		number	UInt32	An offer to delete first, specified in the same way as OfferCancel.
TakerGets	✔️	string	Amount	The amount and type of currency being sold.
TakerPays	✔️	string	Amount	The amount and type of currency being bought.

We propose these additions:

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Internal Type	Description
DomainID		string	Hash256	The domain that the offer must be a part of.

4.1.1. Flags

This spec proposes an additional flag, to indicate whether the offer should consider only the DomainID's Permissioned DEX or also include the open DEX.

4.2. Failure Conditions

The existing set of failure conditions for OfferCreate will continue to exist.

The following will be added, if the DomainID field is included:

• The domain doesn't exist.
• The offer is not a valid domain offer.

4.3. State Changes

The existing set of state changes for OfferCreate will continue to exist.

If the DomainID is included in the OfferCreate transaction, the DEX will use the domain-specific orderbook to process the offer.

5. Transaction: Payment

A Payment transaction represents a transfer of value from one account to another, and can involve currency conversions and crossing the orderbook. This transaction type already exists on the XRPL, but is being extended as a part of this spec to also support permissioned DEX domains.

5.1. Fields

As a reference, here are the existing fields for the Payment transaction.

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Internal Type	Description
Amount	✔️	string	Amount	The maximum amount of currency to deliver. For non-XRP amounts, the nested field names MUST be lower-case. If the tfPartialPayment flag is set, deliver up to this amount instead.
DeliverMin		string	Amount	The minimum amount of destination currency this transaction should deliver. Only valid if this is a partial payment. For non-XRP amounts, the nested field names are lower-case.
Destination	✔️	string	AccountID	The unique address of the account receiving the payment.
DestinationTag		number	UInt32	An arbitrary tag that identifies the reason for the payment to the destination, or a hosted recipient to pay.
InvoiceID		string	Hash256	An arbitrary 256-bit hash representing a specific reason or identifier for this payment.
Paths		array	PathSet	Array of payment paths to be used for this transaction. Must be omitted for XRP-to-XRP transactions.
SendMax		string or object	Amount	Highest amount of source currency this transaction is allowed to cost, including transfer fees, exchange rates, and slippage. Does not include the XRP destroyed as a cost for submitting the transaction. For non-XRP amounts, the nested field names MUST be lower-case. Must be supplied for cross-currency/cross-issue payments. Must be omitted for XRP-to-XRP payments.

We propose these additions:

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Internal Type	Description
DomainID		string	Hash256	The domain that the offer must be a part of.

5.1.1. DomainID

The DomainID can only be included if the payment is a cross-currency payment (i.e. if the payment is going to interact with the DEX). It should only be included if the payment is permissioned.

5.1.2. Flags

This spec proposes an additional flag, to indicate whether the offer should consider only the DomainID's Permissioned DEX or also include the open DEX.

5.2. Failure Conditions

The existing set of failure conditions for Payment will continue to exist.

There will also be the following in addition, if the DomainID is included:

• The payment isn't a cross-currency payment.
• The domain doesn't exist.
• The Account is not a domain member.
• The currencies used in Amount, SendMax, and DeliverMin are not permitted as a part of the domain's rules.
• The paths do not satisfy the domain's rules (e.g. a path includes a currency that isn't allowed to be part of the domain).

5.3. State Changes

The existing set of state changes for a successful Payment transaction will continue to exist.

6. RPC: book_offers

The book_offers RPC method already exists on the XRPL. This proposal suggests some modifications to also support permissioned DEX domains.

6.1. Request Fields

As a reference, here are the fields that book_offers currently accepts:

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Description
taker_gets	✔️	object	The asset the account taking the Offer would receive, as a currency without an amount.
taker_pays	✔️	object	The asset the account taking the Offer would pay, as a currency without an amount.
ledger_hash		string	A 20-byte hex string for the ledger version to use.
ledger_index		number or string	The ledger index of the ledger to use, or a shortcut string to choose a ledger automatically.
limit		number	The maximum number of Offers to return. The response may include fewer results.
taker		string	The address of an account to use as a perspective. The response includes this account's offers even if they are unfunded. (You can use this to see what offers are above or below yours in the order book.)

This proposal puts forward the following addition:

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Description
domain		string	The object ID of a PermissionedDomain object. If this field is included, then the offers will be filtered to only show the valid domain offers for that domain.

6.2. Response Fields

This proposal does not suggest any changes to the response fields. As a reference, here are the fields that book_offers currently returns:

Field Name	Always Present?	JSON Type	Description
ledger_current_index		number or string	The ledger index of the current in-progress ledger version, which was used to retrieve this information.
ledger_index		number or string	The ledger index of the ledger version that was used when retrieving this data, as requested.
ledger_hash		string	The identifying hash of the ledger version that was used when retrieving this data, as requested.
offers	✔️	array	Array of offer objects, each of which has the fields of an Offer object.

7. RPC: path_find

The path_find RPC method already exists on the XRPL. This proposal suggests some modifications to also support permissioned DEX domains.

Only the create subcommand will be affected.

7.1. Request Fields

As a reference, here are the fields that the path_find create subcommand currently accepts:

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Description
subcommand	✔️	string	Use "create" to send the create sub-command
source_account	✔️	string	The address of the account to find a path from. (In other words, the account that would be sending a payment.)
destination_account	✔️	string	The address of the account to find a path to. (In other words, the account that would receive a payment.)
destination_amount	✔️	string or object	The currency amount that the destination account would receive in a transaction.
send_max		string or object	The currency amount that would be spent in the transaction.
paths		array	Array of arrays of objects, representing payment paths to check. You can use this to keep updated on changes to particular paths you already know about, or to check the overall cost to make a payment along a certain path.

This proposal puts forward the following addition:

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Description
domain		string	The object ID of a PermissionedDomain object. If this field is included, then the paths will be filtered to only show the valid paths for that domain.

7.2. Response Fields

As a reference, here are the fields that path_find currently returns:

Field Name	Always Present?	JSON Type	Description
alternatives	✔️	array	An array of objects with suggested paths to take, as described below. If empty, then no paths were found connecting the source and destination accounts.
destination_account	✔️	string	The address of the account that would receive a transaction.
destination_amount	✔️	string or object	The currency amount that the destination would receive in a transaction.
source_account	✔️	string	The address that would send a transaction.
full_reply	✔️	boolean	If false, this is the result of an incomplete search. A later reply may have a better path. If true, then this is the best path found. (It is still theoretically possible that a better path could exist, but rippled won't find it.) Until you close the pathfinding request, rippled continues to send updates each time a new ledger closes.

This proposal puts forward the following addition:

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Description
domain		string	The object ID of a PermissionedDomain object, if the orderbook shown is for a specific domain.

8. RPC: ripple_path_find

The ripple_path_find RPC method already exists on the XRPL. This proposal suggests some modifications to also support permissioned DEX domains.

8.1. Request Fields

As a reference, here are the fields that ripple_path_find currently accepts:

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Description
source_account	✔️	string	The address of the account that would send funds in a transaction
destination_account	✔️	string	The address of the account that would receive funds in a transaction
destination_amount	✔️	string or object	The currency amount that the destination account would receive in a transaction.
send_max		string or object	The currency amount that would be spent in the transaction. Cannot be used with source_currencies.
source_currencies		array	An array of currencies that the source account might want to spend. Each entry in the array should be a JSON object with a mandatory currency field and optional issuer field, like how currency amounts are specified.
ledger_hash		string	A 20-byte hex string for the ledger version to use.
ledger_index		string or number	The ledger index of the ledger to use, or a shortcut string to choose a ledger automatically.

This proposal puts forward the following addition:

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Description
domain		string	The object ID of a PermissionedDomain object. If this field is included, then the paths will be filtered to only show the valid paths for that domain.

8.2. Response Fields

This proposal does not suggest any changes to the response fields. As a reference, here are the fields that ripple_path_find currently returns:

Field Name	Always Present?	JSON Type	Description
alternatives	✔️	array	An array of objects with possible paths to take, as described below. If empty, then there are no paths connecting the source and destination accounts.
destination_account	✔️	string	The address of the account that would receive a payment transaction.
destination_currencies	✔️	array	Array of strings representing the currencies that the destination accepts.

9. RPC: books Subscription

The books subscription option already exists on the XRPL. This proposal suggests some modifications to also support permissioned DEX domains.

9.1. Request Fields

As a reference, here are the fields that books currently accepts:

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Description
taker_gets	✔️	object	Specification of which currency the account taking the Offer would receive.
taker_pays	✔️	object	Specification of which currency the account taking the Offer would pay.
taker	✔️	string	Unique account address to use as a perspective for viewing offers. (This affects the funding status and fees of Offers.)
snapshot		boolean	If true, return the current state of the order book once when you subscribe before sending updates. The default is false.
both		boolean	If true, return both sides of the order book. The default is false.

This proposal puts forward the following addition:

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Description
domain		string	The object ID of a PermissionedDomain object. If this field is included, then the offers will be filtered to only show the valid domain offers for that domain.

9.2. Response Fields

This proposal does not suggest any changes to the response fields. As a reference, here are the fields that the books subscription currently returns (as an array):

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Description
type	✔️	string	transaction indicates this is the notification of a transaction stream, which could come from several possible streams.
engine_result	✔️	string	String transaction result code.
engine_result_code	✔️	number	Numeric transaction response code, if applicable.
engine_result_message	✔️	string	Human-readable explanation for the transaction response.
ledger_hash	✔️	string	The identifying hash of the ledger version that includes this transaction.
ledger_index	✔️	number	The ledger index of the ledger version that includes this transaction.
meta	✔️	object	The transaction metadata, which shows the exact outcome of the transaction in detail.
transaction	✔️	object	The definition of the transaction in JSON format.
validated	✔️	boolean	If true, this transaction is included in a validated ledger and its outcome is final. Responses from the transaction stream should always be validated.

10. RPC: book_changes

The book_changes RPC method already exists on the XRPL. This proposal suggests some modifications to also support permissioned DEX domains.

These changes also apply to the book_changes subscription stream.

10.1. Request Fields

This proposal does not suggest any changes to the request fields. As a reference, here are the fields that book_changes currently accepts:

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Description
ledger_hash		string	A 32-byte hex string for the ledger version to use.
ledger_index		string	The ledger index of the ledger to use, or a shortcut string to choose a ledger automatically. The default is validated.

10.2. Response Fields

As a reference, here are the fields that the book_changes subscription currently returns:

This proposal puts forward the following addition:

Field Name	Required?	JSON Type	Description
domain		string	The object ID of a PermissionedDomain object, if the orderbook changes are for a specific domain.

11. Examples

These examples will be using the following domain:

{
  Owner: "rOWEN......",
  Sequence: 5,
  AcceptedCredentials: [
    Credential: {
      Issuer: "rISABEL......",
      CredentialType: "123ABC"
    }
  ]
}

The domain ID will be ABCDEF1234567890.

Both Tracy and Marko have a 123ABC credential from Isabel.

11.1. Placing a Permissioned Offer

In this sample OfferCreate transaction, Tracy is trading USD for EUR within Owen's domain.

{
  TransactionType: "OfferCreate",
  Account: "rTRACY......",
  TakerGets: {
    currency: "USD",
    issuer: "rUSDISSUER.......",
    value: "11"
  },
  TakerPays: {
    currency: "EUR",
    issuer: "rEURISSUER......."
    value: "10"
  },
  DomainID: "ABCDEF1234567890",
  Fee: "12",
  Sequence: 8
}

11.2. Placing an Unpermissioned Offer

In this sample OfferCreate transaction, Marko is trading EUR for USD on the open USD-EUR orderbook. This offer will not cross Tracy's offer, since Tracy's offer is inside the domain.

{
  TransactionType: "OfferCreate",
  Account: "rMARKO......",
  TakerGets: {
    currency: "EUR",
    issuer: "rEURISSUER.......",
    value: "10"
  },
  TakerPays: {
    currency: "USD",
    issuer: "rUSDISSUER......."
    value: "11"
  },
  Fee: "12",
  Sequence: 3
}

12. Invariants

No permissioned offer with a DomainID field will be filled by:

• An invalid domain offer.
• An offer from a different domain.
• An open offer.

No permissioned offer will be placed in:

• An orderbook for a different domain.
• The open orderbook.

No open offer will be placed in a permissioned orderbook.

No open offer will be filled by a permissioned offer.

13. Security

The trust assumptions are the same as with permissioned domains.

n+1. Open Questions

• Does a permissioned offer need to be able to be part of multiple domains? If so, the DomainID field should be replaced with a DomainIDs field (to accommodate a list)

Appendix

Appendix A: FAQ

A.1: How are AMMs handled?

AMMs are not explicitly supported within permissioned DEXes in this proposal. They could be added to permissioned DEXes in a future proposal.

A.2: How will performance/TPS be affected from all these additional checks?

Performance tests will need to be conducted once the implementation is done. The spec may be modified if such tests show serious performance reduction.

A.3: Why do you need a domain? Why not just indicate what credentials you accept on the offer itself?

It's much easier to specify a single domain instead of a list of credentials every time, especially since using an incorrect list of credentials would result in accessing a different orderbook.

A.4: Will an account with Deposit Authorization enabled be forced to use Permissioned DEXes?

No.

A.5: Can NFT offers use domains?

This proposal does not include support for NFT offers in domains. However, that could be added later.

A.6: Can an offer be part of multiple domains?

No, multiple offers would need to be placed for it to be in multiple domains.

A.7: Can direct IOU payments be permissioned?

No, because they don't go through the DEX. The issuer and destination can be directly verified for compliance and trust.

Appendix B: Alternate Designs

The Platonic ideal design would involve one orderbook per pair of assets. The trader indicates what domain they want to participate in, and the DEX automatically figures out what offers are okay for that domain to accept and what offers are not, based on the contents of the offer and the account that placed it.

This was essentially one design considered, which involved all of the offers staying in one orderbook. If an offer needed to be in a domain, each offer that crossed it would be checked for offer membership individually (in the same way that offers are checked on whether they're funded). This idea was scrapped due to performance concerns - a permissioned offer might have to iterate through the whole orderbook before finding a matching offer (if one exists).

[Island-Ghost]

This is fantastic. I hope to be a factoring contributor to this development.

[XRPSezz]

Really well thought out practical and comprehensive proposal.

[mvadari]

A minor update to this spec was published today, 2024-09-25. Token-gating support was removed, as per the change in XLS-80d.

[HigherAndHigher]

Great, looking forward to the next article.

[mvadari]

A minor update to this spec was published today, 2024-12-02, to support offers that can be in a domain and the open DEX.

[mvadari]

Per the new XLS Contributing process, it is my opinion that we have reached a "well-refined standard."

As such, I propose that we move this discussion to a file (via #256) and work on final changes using additional PRs, for better change-tracking.

Please comment here if you would like to object to moving this spec/discussion forward in the process into a DRAFT spec.

(Note that per the Contributing guidelines, moving a spec into the DRAFT state does not mean any kind of endorsement, nor does it mean that this specification will become adopted. It is solely meant as a mechanism to enable better change tracking using PRs.)