Defining / closing seals on dust UTXO

[MaxHillebrand]

A dust UTXO is uneconomical to spend, meaning that the value of sats it contains is below the mining fee in sat/vbyte that is required to spend it again. In order to spend the coin, it has to be consolidated with at least one other coin, that pays for the left-over transaction fee deficit.

IIRC, Bitcoin Core / Knots nodes remove such a coin from their UTXO set in memory, as it is not expected [but still possible] that it will be spent.

However, RGB changes this dynamic.

A seal can be defined on ANY UTXO [even a non-existing / LN output]. Thus, a seal can potentially be defined on a dust UTXO too. This means, that the "real" economical value of spending this coin is in fact higher than only the transfer of the sats, as it also closes the seal and thus transfers ownership of the RGB asset.

Questions

• Should dust coins be prohibited from defining a seal upon?
• Are there any nuances to consider when closing a seal over a dust coin?
• Are there any issues with full nodes who don't have that dust coin in memory?