Note: I have tweaked the current Transaction type, rather than introducing a new one for the Token's Transaction. I think both approaches have flaws – one avoids overcomplicating the code, the another one introduces potentially unneeded changes to code that is currently on production. I spoke with Thomas yesterday, seems like the Token's Transaction type will be different than the Transactions – however, I still think we should still try to make the types compatible with one another, as we are in a desperate need of simplification of the Explorer.

A couple of questions here:

• are these token transactions a possible transaction in a block?
• can't we just have a specific type that extends the transaction one?

A couple of questions here:

• are these token transactions a possible transaction in a block?

I think so.

• can't we just have a specific type that extends the transaction one?

Yeah, this is also possible. But I didn't want to fiddle too much with the types, until we have some API spec. Otherwise it's just back and forth changing stuff on our end.

I know that @Neotamandua still haven't started working on it yet, but would be good to have some drafts / plan on how it would look like.

Fair enough.