Runes: Restricted Issuer

[vforvilela]

To enhance the Rune protocol for issuing tokens reliant on a central entity, such as bonds, stocks, and asset-backed instruments, I suggest adding an "issuer" field to the existing Terms structure.

struct Terms {
    ...
    issuer: Option<BitcoinAddress>, // Bitcoin address of the designated issuer
}

The minting input would be restricted to transactions originating from the specified Bitcoin address, ensuring that only authorized transactions from the designated issuer can mint new tokens.

[cryptoni9n]

pretty sure this is a clone of #3677

[HubertusVIE]

I suggest adding an "issuer" field to the existing Terms structure.
issuer: Option, // Bitcoin address of the designated issuer

Agree with @cryptoni9n - it appears to be a clone. The difference is governance flag vs. issuer field. A field seems redundant as the deployer can be the governance holder. In the future, there could be a governance transfer to another address with an edict but again a special field would be redundant. That has no priority though, the flag is more important.

[casey]

Continuing discussion in #3677. See comments there about using a fixed address.