Context
devnet.mdx:33-43 and glossary.mdx:15-26 list all bech32m prefixes used by Ligate Chain. Per the audit, they correctly mark lcc1 (NFT collections) and ltk1 (fungible token denominations) as reserved but not yet shipping.
Worth a second pass to make the "shipping vs reserved" distinction more visually obvious. A reader skimming the table today might miss the marker and assume lcc1 / ltk1 are part of the v0.2.0 surface, when they're roadmap items (post-v1).
Suggested fix
Either:
- Split into two tables ("Shipped in v0.2.0" / "Reserved for future minor releases"), or
- Add a visual marker column ("Status: ✅ shipped / 🟡 reserved") with a one-line note above the table.
Nit, not launch-blocking. Filing so we don't forget.
Audit reference
From the docs-vs-chain audit (2026-05-17):
Bech32m prefix tables in devnet.mdx:33-43 and glossary.mdx:15-26 list exactly the shipping HRPs (lig, lpk, lsc, las, lat, ltx, lph, lsch, token_) plus reserved-but-not-shipping lcc1, ltk1 clearly marked as reserved.
The "clearly marked" claim is generous; can be made clearer.
Context
devnet.mdx:33-43andglossary.mdx:15-26list all bech32m prefixes used by Ligate Chain. Per the audit, they correctly marklcc1(NFT collections) andltk1(fungible token denominations) as reserved but not yet shipping.Worth a second pass to make the "shipping vs reserved" distinction more visually obvious. A reader skimming the table today might miss the marker and assume
lcc1/ltk1are part of the v0.2.0 surface, when they're roadmap items (post-v1).Suggested fix
Either:
Nit, not launch-blocking. Filing so we don't forget.
Audit reference
From the docs-vs-chain audit (2026-05-17):
The "clearly marked" claim is generous; can be made clearer.