Q&A: Which of bitcoin cash token types should I use, SLP or cashtoken
Question:
Which of bitcoin cash token types should I use, SLP or cashtoken
Answer:
Short answer: for new projects, use CashTokens. SLP mostly makes sense if you’re maintaining existing SLP infrastructure or specifically value its “loose coupling” design. Here’s the breakdown.
CashTokens (recommended for new work)
- Built into the protocol. Activated in the May 2023 BCH upgrade, meaning tokens are validated by the network itself rather than by a separate layer (source: cashtokens).
- Counterfeit-proof and non-destructive. Wallets can verify authenticity directly; token-unaware software can’t accidentally destroy your tokens.
- First-class NFTs. Byte-string commitments (NFTs) are a core primitive, not a fungible token with supply 1 — this is what enables contract-issued commitments and cross-contract interfaces.
- Smart contract / dApp support. CashTokens let covenants authenticate each other without shared global state, enabling composable dApps that scale (CashScript, AnyHedge, Cauldron DEX, etc.).
- Broad ecosystem support — wallets (Electron Cash, Paytaca, Zapit…), nodes (BCHN, BU, Flowee…), and indexers.
SLP (legacy / specific niches)
- Application-layer protocol using
OP_RETURNdata carriers; the full node just sees normal BCH transactions. Validation happens in a separate indexer, not the network (source: slp-intro). - Loose coupling is its main philosophical advantage: it avoids “tight coupling to the full node” and could be adapted to other chains — a hedge against platform risk (source: slp-intro).
- Downsides: transactions aren’t network-validated, you depend on indexing servers and client-side validation, and there’s a real risk of burning tokens if UTXOs are mishandled (mitigated by mature tooling like
minimal-slp-wallet). - Limited functionality: token creation, transfer, burning, and dividends — no native smart-contract composability.
How to decide
| Use CashTokens if… | Consider SLP if… |
|---|---|
| You’re building something new | You must interoperate with existing SLP tokens/ecosystem |
| You need NFTs, covenants, or dApps | You only need simple fungible transfers and want maximum node-software independence |
| You want network-enforced counterfeit-proofing | You’re already invested in the PSF/Cash Stack SLP tooling |
| You want the broadest modern wallet/exchange support | You specifically want loose coupling / portability to other chains |
Bottom line: The Bitcoin Cash ecosystem consensus is that CashTokens is the superior, forward-looking implementation. Choose SLP only for legacy compatibility or if its loosely-coupled architecture is a deliberate requirement.
One caveat worth noting: the PSF Cash Stack documentation still includes extensive SLP tooling (psf-slp-wallet, slp-token-indexer, minimal-slp-wallet), so if you’re working specifically within that stack, there may be tooling reasons to use SLP — but for greenfield work, CashTokens is the way to go.
Public Q&A mirror from the Block tech-support bot.
Write a comment