<c​atduck101:matrix.org> can someone review/approve pr 2550? thanks.

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Need consensus

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> i don't personally have a preference about whether to list retoswap alone, or whether to list haveno and have retoswap as a sub-listing.

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> It was sub-listed before, now is standalone

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Issue with standalone is that there can be many different haveno networks (currently is 1 in use, potentially 2 that are "live" (i havent checked out dawnswap)), but i imagine more will pop up after reto starts charging fees

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> today, there is only 1 notable haveno network, so it seems sane to list it as standalone. But if in the future there are 2+, i think it would make more sense to list as sublistings

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Listing as sub from day 1 saves from having to go through drama of changing how it is listed in the future, but who's to say that there will ever be more than 1?

<c​atduck101:matrix.org> neither do I but it seems like hardenedsteel suggested it'd be better as standalone.

<c​atduck101:matrix.org> fair

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> hardened also pointed out that retoswap has not-great support / mediation

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> But people will recommend it mostly because its the only option for p2p fiat<->xmr

<c​atduck101:matrix.org> yeah that's true

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> anyway, id like to hear more opinions on whether to list clones / instances as standalone, or as sublistings to haveno

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Thats the main reason i havent approved, is i would might lean towards sublistings half the time. So would like other views

<c​atduck101:matrix.org> yeah sure, let's see if someone else chimes in