style: trust backed assets naming

[Daanvdplas]

This is how it is done in assethub, changes the naming from Assets to TrustBackedAssets

[brunopgalvao]

Looks like you need to update the naming in this integration test:

pop-node/integration-tests/src/chains/pop_network/mod.rs

Line 27 in 2229bae

Assets: pop_runtime_devnet::Assets,

[Daanvdplas]

This macro only accepts Assets:

pop-node/integration-tests/src/chains/pop_network/mod.rs

Line 36 in 2229bae

impl_assets_helpers_for_parachain!(PopNetwork, Rococo);

I see two ways to move forward.

1. Use TrustBackedAssets and create a impl_trust_backed_assets_helpers_for_parachain! function.

• pros: We can use the TrustBackedAssets naming on the chain level. After a quick look I couldn't find any other chain using this naming but Assethub might change with the relaunch of JAM.
• cons: We might have to do some maintenance work here and there.

2. Leave Assets as is.

• pros: Naming that everyone uses and perhaps simpler to understand
• cons: Unspecific naming especially with ForeignAssets that will be included in the future.

[brunopgalvao]

Keeping it as Assets is simple and it is also the pallet name. I see no need for naming it TrustBackedAssets. But I am also not against it if someone feels strongly about it.

I think it makes sense for AssetHub to have TrustBackedAssets because AssetHub is considered a "reserve".

[evilrobot-01]

I think it makes sense for AssetHub to have TrustBackedAssets because AssetHub is considered a "reserve".

I dont think that is the necessarily the case, but rather it seems to have stemmed from asset instancing a long time back and needing to differentiate more clearly in the difference between instances - paritytech/cumulus#1908. I understand it to be more as a 'buyer beware' in that anyone can create assets and correspondingly freeze or destroy those assets. Using the asset implies some trust that the owner will not do as much, at least depending on how the asset is created/configured.

The phrasing at https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/blob/5cf99f383c6692feeb26647a3ec544d80b66eaae/system-parachains/asset-hubs/asset-hub-polkadot/src/lib.rs#L300-L302 alludes more to stablecoins where there could be some trust that the asset is indeed backed offchain with some corresponding fiat.

I think there could be some benefit in going against the status quo of just using 'assets' to convey these additional considerations, but do admit that TrustBackedAssets isnt the friendliest name and its use from an end user pespective might be poor based on UX. Its possibly a tradeoff between signalling versus simple naming.

[Daanvdplas]

We have decided to go for Assets naming in stead of TrustBackedAssets