The implementation is quite similar to the well known ERC-721 standard in the Ethereum ecosystem.
There are already some open issues in the repository. One important issue is to write an AEX proposal which can serve as basis for an official NFT standard on æternity.
Don’t hesitate to test it and provide feedback!
Note: The contract isn’t an AEX standard yet. It can serve as reference implementation very soon but it is subject to changes at its current state!
Do I think whether I can win? I wasn’t aware I was in a contest to be honest. I’m simply trying to make a contribution to the Aeternity ecosystem and that way trying to make it better. I don’t get why this is such a problem for you.
I also believe that Aeternity is, from a technical perspective, one of the best systems around. And that’s why I believe in it. It’s always hard for something that’s technically more advanced than what’s currently on the market to become adopted. It has always been like that and will always be like that.
I believe that the value of a blockchain ecosystem is based on its market potential and Aeternity has a very high potential for enterprise blockchain. I see the short sighted “traders”, only interested in a quick buck, as a bigger problem than there not being huge growth yet. I like to look at things in the long term.
Is everything perfect? Of course not. Do I agree with everything? No again. I strongly dislike the AENS auction system, it’s very harmful for adoption in enterprise blockchain applications. I also strongly criticize the harsh and over-regulated grant system. But that doesn’t mean that Aeternity is bad. It means there’s, in my opinion, room for improvement.
So relax, zen, take a breath and let’s work on making things better.
Thing is to say, that also cannot disappoint investors in bull market, any success lies in the various efforts, the team has been stressed they do technology not relationship with investors, this is very wrong.
ETH is excellent, but not, at that time he had a more than 90% of investors are satisfied.
Hope that the team to the market.
What is more technologically advanced is always difficult to adopt?
Are you kidding? Please give your examples.
Now the world is more inclusive, and things with better technology are easy to be accepted and adopted by the society, and they are easier to promote. You say you know ae is better. You think the system is very advanced. It’s just your own opinion. I don’t want to argue with you because the community and market have given us the answer.
The team is always avoiding the problems in the market and always thinks its technology is great. But in fact, AE, which has been developed for five years, still can’t stand the test.
I have been with aeternity for 5 years. That’s what disappoints everyone.
When the car was invented they first were motorized carriages, because people drove horse and carriages before that. Thus they were used to the idea of transport looking like that. As the technology evolved and people learned about aerodynamics cars started to change. Also the computer needed a long time to get where it is. Apple certainly had the better computer with Macintosh, but people still continued with the PC. So adoption of new and better technology always takes a long time. It has always been like that. It’s a part of the process.
Of course it’s my opinion and you’re free to have another opinion. However, if one is dissatisfied it’s easy to complain, but better would be to make things better as a community. I find it slightly naive to think that the team can do it alone. I think, and that’s again my opinion, that this is the only way to make things better.
thanks…I admit that some of your views are right, but have you considered why AE’s community has become like this?
Lack of communication between the team and the community, or no communication at all. Why? Because AE apart from the R & D team, there is no team responsible for community maintenance, no promotion and operation team, and no ecological business team.
Some complaints from the community are more directed at the AF foundation than the R & D team, but AE currently only the R & D team. This is sad and helpless
IMO this wasn’t really followed in the existing issues and some PRs which probably produces some confusion on your side. also there exist a lot of issues that have e.g. AEX-4 in their names to discuss implementation related stuff. in the upcoming weeks I will try to clean that stuff up and if necessary close some older issues.
the process clearly defines that there are usually two choices for the AEX number (which will be set by one of the editors):
the number of the PR (typical case)
the number of the issue if there was some discussion about the AEX in the issue section of the repository (if preferred by the author)
personally I would always prefer to have first an issue with some discussion around the AEX where it is being specified and then create a PR including the specification. and if we decide to do it this way I would always prefer the number of the issue where it was discussed.
the funny thing here is that we didn’t even follow that for the AEX-9 token as it seems because issue/PR number 9 is an update for AEX-4. I have no idea why AEX-9 was chosen as a number. any comment on that @philipp.chain ?
so to be clear from my side I propose that we go this route:
you create an issue with your specification (without defining the number of the AEX already)
we discuss the AEX proposal in this issue
you provide a PR for the AEX if we have consensus in that discussion (or if you decide there is enough confidence to do so)
an editor reviews the PR as described in AEX-1, defines a number (probably the number of the issue with the discussion) and merges the spec into the repo
it’s still an open discussion for everything related to the standard. e.g. we were also thinking about completely avoiding non-safe transfers and only allow safe transfers.
I will discuss with @zkvonsnarkenstein.chain next week … hopefully we will be able to get aligned very soon so that we can adapt the current proposed implementation and get it ready to be reviewed
we are in the final phase of the specification of the NFT contract now before making an in-depth review and starting the implementation. everybody is welcome to comment: https://github.com/aeternity/AEXs/issues/141
is there any technical skilled person with knowledge about NFT contracts on other chains? we are aiming to provide different metadata types in this standard and now one big question is if a contract should allow to mix different types of metadata for its NFTs or whether we should force the developer to choose one specific metadata type for the NFT contract.
there are pros and cons for both, please comment and give your reaction here:
because issue/PR number 9 is an update for AEX-4. I have no idea why AEX-9 was chosen as a number. any comment on that 
