13d0d7130e
- config/gru-governance-supervision-profile.json + gru-standards-profile cross-refs - GRU_STORAGE_GOVERNANCE_AND_SUPERVISION_STANDARD.md; GRU matrix/profile doc updates - naming-conventions: 03 bridges/cross-chain, 04 registry JSON fields; README table complete - validate-config-files: governance profile checks (existing jq rules) - reports/identity-completion: templates + README for DID/governance completion path - mlfo-gitea-avatar.svg; refreshed transaction-package-HYBX-BATCH-001.zip - gitignore: .codex, tmp/, regenerated output audit trees/zips, token-lists/logos PNGs Submodules remain dirty locally (commit inside each submodule separately). Made-with: Cursor
Naming conventions (UTRNF, GRU, Chain 138, bridges)
Purpose: Canonical grammar for token symbols, financial roles, cross-chain identity, and registry fields across DBIS / GRU / Chain 138 and CCIP-adjacent implementations.
Audience: Protocol engineers, bridge operators, explorer and token-list maintainers, institutional JSON authors, and auditors.
Documents in this directory
| File | Summary |
|---|---|
| 01_UTRNF_REFERENCE.md | Universal Token Role Naming Framework (protocol-agnostic reference): prefixes, formats, taxonomy, classification logic, multichain rule, registry example, rollout phases. |
| 02_DBIS_NAMESPACE_AND_UTRNF_MAPPING.md | Authoritative DBIS binding: what c* and cW* mean here vs UTRNF c (collateral); which UTRNF prefixes apply as-is; registry-first rules. |
| 03_BRIDGES_CROSS_CHAIN_NAMING.md | Logical asset identity vs chain-local contracts; CCIP and bridge naming patterns; same hex / different bytecode cautions. |
| 04_REGISTRY_AND_JSON_FIELDS.md | Recommended JSON fields for token and bridge registries; links to config/smart-contracts-master.json and DBIS institutional config. |
When to use symbol parsing vs registry
- Human display and rough discovery: Symbols may follow the grammars in
01and02. - Canonical identity, accounting, and compliance: Always resolve
(chainId, contract address)plus explicittokenRole/utrnfRole/gruAssetClassfrom a registry (see04). Never infer GRU compliant money from UTRNF prefix tables alone:cUSDCis not UTRNF “collateral.”
Related project documentation
- GRU
c*V2 standards and layers: GRU_C_STAR_V2_STANDARDS_MATRIX_AND_IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md - GRU standards profile (machine-readable): GRU_STANDARDS_PROFILE.md,
config/gru-standards-profile.json - Canonical Chain 138 token addresses and Explorer cross-check: EXPLORER_TOKEN_LIST_CROSSCHECK.md
- Contract addresses: CONTRACT_ADDRESSES_REFERENCE.md, ADDRESS_MATRIX_AND_STATUS.md
- CCIP deployment and bridge docs: docs/07-ccip/ (e.g. CCIP_DEPLOYMENT_SPEC.md)
- c* → cW* mapper config: C_TO_CW_MAPPER_MAPPING.md,
config/token-mapping-multichain.json - DBIS institutional JSON:
config/dbis-institutional/README.md
Roadmap (documentation vs code)
The UTRNF reference describes a phased rollout (token roles → contract alignment → SDK → governance checks). This directory documents conventions for the repo; it does not mandate immediate contract or schema refactors. Prefer incremental alignment via registries and new deployments.