Wondering if we shouldn't rename zetaConnector into zetaCustody in protocol contracts.
It's not holding the Zeta in literal sense with the minter/burner model but it's still the contract handling flow of the asset.
It would make it consistent with erc20Custody . You have the gateway contract that executes logics and the custody contracts that handle assets: erc20Custody , zetaCustody , nftCustody , ercxxCustody
@lumtis do we want to rename this?
the only thing i see that would be a bit off is that zeta non eth tokens have updateTssAndConnectorAddresses methods, which would still be using connector terminology
Wondering if we shouldn't rename zetaConnector into zetaCustody in protocol contracts. It's not holding the Zeta in literal sense with the minter/burner model but it's still the contract handling flow of the asset. It would make it consistent with erc20Custody . You have the gateway contract that executes logics and the custody contracts that handle assets: erc20Custody , zetaCustody , nftCustody , ercxxCustody