i’ve written about it in the past but i feel like now it would hit more ears so to speak. there are basically two categories of covenants, those that are all about the Kaspa they protect (eg vaults, timelocks, escrow etc) and those that are about the state they carry which essentially forms another mini social consensus (eg name services, native kcc20 tokens, and whatnot). one might typically call these stateful covenants but that’s not the full story instead of diving straight in, i’d like to hear from you. how do you understand the difference between the two categories, conceptually as well as what are the technical implications resulting from the differences

argent now has a first implementation of covenant genesis proofs: github.com/argent-lang/argen… idk how to emphasize this enough, but i expect *every stateful covenant* deployed on kaspa to eventually provide such a proof. the goal is a verifiable link from a covenant id back to the source code, deployment parameters, and genesis state that produced it. we should strive for an ecosystem where explorers expose this proof data for every covenant id they discover onchain, assuming its deployers want public trust. think of it as the analogue of contract verification on etherscan, extended to stateful covenants: you should be able to inspect what a covenant is, audit the code behind it, and verify how it was instantiated. kudos to @supertypo_kas for being an early-bird example of such a proper deployment process: github.com/supertypo/dotk-in… (not sure if the sil contracts themselves are public yet)