Keep original names as an option when syncing unknown currencies

There are various reasons why a token is not recognized by Accointing.

Whether it is because the token is very new, exotic, or it is an offshoot such as wrapped, or pegged coins etc.

For quite some time now cryptocurrency traders have been leveraging bitcoin-based assets tethered, wrapped or pegged to alternative blockchains.

Like “Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC)” for example, wich is simply the ERC-20 version of the real Bitcoin, whose price is “pegged” to BTC.

Another example is “Tether (USDT)” which is simply an on-chain representation of the dollar that is “pegged” to the fiat currency’s real price.

Nice and good.

Currently such “pegged” tokens are often not recognized by Accointing and if you want to resolve them with the help of the “Unknown currencies detection feature” you can do that, but instead of the wrapped token the pegged one is displayed and you have no possibility to change it.

As in my example below:

In this case my “KSM.P” (which is a parachain bond token) cannot be recognized by Accounting and gives me an ugly red “?”.

Since KSM.P can be “pegged” 1:1 to KSM, I can use this fact to solve this problem by manually “linking” this “unknown currency” to KSM (which is known to the Accounting database).

Pegging KSM.P to KSM:

Worked! But sadly it still shows the pegged Tag (KSM) instead of the “real” name, wich is (KSM.P)

If you add “unknown currencies” like in my example above manually, then It would be much better if we could choose which name is been shown inside the Data Set to have a better picture what was going on with such transactions.

Therefore my suggestion would be to give the User the option to choose/toggle the Coin-name shown in the Data Set.

Thanks a lot and hope for many votes.

Hey! Thanks for the feedback! In, we work based on a voting mechanism: the more upvotes your feature requests has, the faster it moves in our development pipeline. Hopefully, you’ll get enough upvotes from this community to have it implemented.

1 Like

I like it, I voted for it, myself! Don’t forget to vote for your own post :slight_smile:


This is on the same topic.

1 Like

Cool! :cat2:

Very nice and important content.

Now we know, or at least the attentive reader, why things are the way they are when it comes to pegging.

Still, a small flaw remains and You may already know… It’s the technical adaptation.

Information technologists and|or Computer scientist need to solve problems, not rewrite them.
But… Yeah! I know, “community voting”.

Anyway, I do hope and wish the best.

1 Like

I had a request to be able to have another name for Wrapped Currencies. Here is an example of how this would be helpful.

  1. We wrapped ETH, so it is an unknown currency. We have a Transaction ID and Fee.
  2. We sync the missing currency to the value of ETH.
  3. We are unable to classify it as internal.

Solution: If we were able to create a custom token for it, or do enable what this post is about to keep the name, then that would allow users to mark these as internals.
Workaround: Ignore all transactions (Since wrapping is an internal transfer) and manually add another transaction for the price of the fee and classify it as a fee and add the transaction ID if desired.

1 Like