Suggestion to rename token to asset

[razgraf]

Should we consider renaming the streamed token into a streamed asset?

In v2, the stream itself is a token (an NFT to be specific). As it inherits attributes and methods from ERC721, it gets a tokenId and other "token"-related features. This could make it a bit unclear for the underlying ERC20 the stream runs on. There will be getters for things like stream.token, stream.tokenId which are very different things but due to naming will most often live alongside each other.

@PaulRBerg @andreivladbrg

[PaulRBerg]

As I have argued on Slack, I am in favor of this proposal.

1. As you say, renaming token to asset would create a distinction between the NFT token and the ERC-20 token (I had to wrestle with this issue when I implemented feat: add getter for ERC-20 token #249 and ended up naming the function getERC20Token, which I still find ugly)
2. We are now calling Sablier a "cryptoasset streaming protocol" - here's your asset!
3. Another benefit of using asset is that it opens up the "use case space" for what can be streamed as long as that contract is compliant with the ERC-20 standard. Maybe the contract developer prefers to refer to the contract as a "shares contract", or it's some NFT fractionalization scheme. In these cases, "asset" fits better as a description because it's more generic.

[PaulRBerg]

Created an issue to track the implementation for this:

#274

[PaulRBerg]

Locking since this was implemented in #275.