SEP-41: add mint and clawback event

[chowbao]

Discussion

Add a mint and clawback event to SEP-41 to be able to track balances through events correctly

This does not define a mint() nor clawback() function. This only defines the events themselves to be SEP-41 compliant

[leighmcculloch]

Looks good to me, but I don't think we should merge it until CAP-67 is further along, just because once this is merged there's a cost to iterating on it that doesn't exist if we iterate on it in this PR.

[ozgunozerk]

I think this is a great step. As someone who is new to the ecosystem, I think there might be a confusion around this new change though. There is mint event specified, but no mention of mint() function. Quoting from @chowbao's comment on the relevant discussion:

This SEP has purposely not added an mint() nor init_asset() function to give contracts more flexibility. The theory is that a contract should be free to define how they want to mint a new custom token. There doesn't need to be an standard single initialization function. There are existing contracts that have an initialize() function that does emit the mint event. By not adding a minting function to the interface, these existing contracts with be compliant with this SEP without changes.

This explanation is currently implicit, but if made explicit by putting it in SEP-41, I think a lot of confusion will be prevented, and people will better understand the design rationale behind this.

P.S. needless the say, the same goes for clawback event and clawback() function.

[github-actions]

This pull request is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. It will be closed in 30 days unless the stale label is removed.