Hi, is this the right place to ask a CIP-112 v2 design/semantics question? If there is a better venue, happy to move it there.
I’m looking for clarification on committed allocations.
My current understanding is that committed = True restricts Allocation_Withdraw, but does not by itself restrict Allocation_Cancel; cancel/settle authorization is ultimately enforced by the registry implementation.
Is that the intended model?
More specifically:
-
Are committed allocations meant only for settlement/DvP-style flows, or also for longer-lived escrow-style use cases?
-
If a client needs a committed allocation that cannot be cancelled unilaterally by the authorizer/executor, is that expected to be handled as registry-specific policy?
-
Is there any standard way for a client to discover or require such a policy, or would that need a future capability/profile/extension?
-
For adding funds to an existing committed allocation, is cancel-and-reallocate the expected portable pattern, or is there a preferred lock-preserving rollover/top-up flow?
Thanks.