# Proposal: Towards QTT Semantics of RM

**URL:** <https://forum.anoma.net/t/proposal-towards-qtt-semantics-of-rm/1335>\
**Category:** RM\
**Created:** [March 26, 2025, 11:42am UTC](https://forum.anoma.net/t/proposal-towards-qtt-semantics-of-rm/1335 "2025-03-26T11:42:23Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ArtemG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/45deac/32.png) [@ArtemG](https://forum.anoma.net/u/ArtemG)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2025, 11:53am UTC](https://forum.anoma.net/t/proposal-towards-qtt-semantics-of-rm/1335/22 "2025-04-02T11:53:19Z")

</div>

> [@xuyang](#):
>
> Many details remain to be finalized, and I’m unsure if this will ultimately meet our requirements.

Right, I think we can both agree that we need proper specs and examples for interoperability 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![xuyang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/c68b51/32.png) [@xuyang](https://forum.anoma.net/u/xuyang)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2025, 12:23pm UTC](https://forum.anoma.net/t/proposal-towards-qtt-semantics-of-rm/1335/23 "2025-04-02T12:23:47Z")

</div>

Inspired by your proposal, we can add the `value` to the kind only for ephemeral resources. This ensures that the same ephemeral resources are correctly created and consumed within transactions. We don’t need to worry about tampering with the `value` for ephemeral resources since kind computation is constrained by compliance proofs. Although it makes no difference to put everything to labels and it would make the label and value have the same functionality for ephemeral resources, I think it might be fine as the value in ephemeral resources currently is useless or dangerous to use. This approach might address @mariari’s example and prevents misuse of ephemeral resource values with minimal changes to the current design.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ArtemG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/45deac/32.png) [@ArtemG](https://forum.anoma.net/u/ArtemG)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2025, 12:55pm UTC](https://forum.anoma.net/t/proposal-towards-qtt-semantics-of-rm/1335/24 "2025-04-02T12:55:57Z")

</div>

That actually sounds like a pretty good idea to me. @mariari thoughts?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mariari](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a3d4f5/32.png) [@mariari](https://forum.anoma.net/u/mariari)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2025, 2:05pm UTC](https://forum.anoma.net/t/proposal-towards-qtt-semantics-of-rm/1335/25 "2025-04-02T14:05:20Z")

</div>

@xuyang’s proposal is very sensible to me and would fix the issue that I’m having on this front, so I’m happy with that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ArtemG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/45deac/32.png) [@ArtemG](https://forum.anoma.net/u/ArtemG)\
**Post date:** [April 3, 2025, 12:54pm UTC](https://forum.anoma.net/t/proposal-towards-qtt-semantics-of-rm/1335/26 "2025-04-03T12:54:44Z")

</div>

Yet one thing that I then keep asking myself is: if we accept Jeremy’s paradigm it seems that we have no use of `quantity` for non-ephemeral resources such as XAN or Spacebucks at all.

What will the delta proof actually check there?

I understand the point that at some point we might figure a way for it to breach interoperability yet even assuming we do, if we do not use the `quantity` field for these resources what would that delta proof actually be used for?

[Previous page](https://forum.anoma.net/t/proposal-towards-qtt-semantics-of-rm/1335.md?page=1)