UIP-0132: Fungible Planet Token

[kennyrowe]

There didn’t seem to be an active discussion happening publicly on UIP-0132, so I wanted to kick one off here and invite thoughts and concerns from the broader community.

I’ve spent some time reading the proposal, and overall, I find it to be minimally invasive way to unlock flexibility for address space holders. A few things I appreciate:
1. Minimally Viable Token — The only change to the ecliptic contract is a check for the planetTreasury, making it low-overhead from an engineering and audit perspective.
2. Increased Optionality — It gives star owners more choices in how they use or distribute their unused spawn capacity.
3. Commodity-like Behavior — Treating unspawned address space as a commodity is conceptually aligned with how many holders already view it.
4. Enables Derivative Products — This could unlock interesting composability, such as products like Reserves DFT or other DeFi primitives.
5. Improves Crypto-Legibility — Having a standard ERC-20 token makes Urbit more legible and interoperable within the wider crypto ecosystem.

That said, I do have a few concerns worth surfacing:
• Speculation Cuts Both Ways — Financialization could drive growth and attention, but Urbit has largely avoided that to date, and introducing a fungible token could shift perception or erode confidence in the long-term vision if not handled thoughtfully.
• Supply Shock Risk — Depending on how much address space is minted into the token initially, there could be a significant supply shock at launch.

There are also some open questions I’d love to hear thoughts on:
• How exactly does onboarding work with the planetTreasury contract? Are planets minted directly to recipients, or is there a wrapper flow?
• What might the gas costs look like, especially for redeeming $URBIT tokens and minting a new planet?
• Should there be some kind of incentive or reputational system to encourage token-holders to actually boot and use their ships, rather than just treating them as speculative assets?