Æternity NFT token standard

Sophia Smart Contract Development AEXpansion Proposals
8

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.

10

absolutely. we need more people like @zkvonsnarkenstein.chain that actually care about aeternity and actively contribute. props for that! :slight_smile:

1 Like
11

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.

1 Like
12

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.

4 Likes
13

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

14

I am sure this will change. Please be patient.

2 Likes
15

I think you can simply go with AEX-11 :smiley:

1 Like
16

ohh sorry I forgot to answer here. we already discussed this on Discord. we will definitely revisit everything related to AEX proposals.

so generally everything is described here: AEXs/AEXS/aex-1.md at master · aeternity/AEXs · GitHub

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 :smiley: 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 ? :sweat_smile:

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 :wink:

any comments or other thoughts on this?

NO, please NOT! :smiley:

4 Likes
17

@zkvonsnarkenstein.chain I also propose that we first discuss the spec before adjusting the current state of the (reference-)implementation.

if we have “clarity” on the interface spec everybody can prepare their application to be able to handle that AEX spec

1 Like
18

Let the discussion begin!

8 Likes
19

awesome! will take a look as soon as I find the time :slight_smile:

3 Likes
20

Here is the latest discussion regarding the implementation of the new NFT standard through an AEX proposal:

Some open questions remain:

  • do we need to provide an id for minting a new token? what use cases exist here?
  • should we use an IPFS hash for the metadata?
  • should we store metadata in the contract directly?
  • which format should we use? json like ERC-721?

Feel free to share your opinion in the discussion on Github :nerd_face:

1 Like
21

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 :slight_smile: … 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 :slight_smile:

1 Like
22

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

NFTs are coming! =)

3 Likes
23

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:

3 Likes
24

Update from @marco.chain on the NFT discussion:

Call for comment here again. Would be nice to get your opinion about the metadata discussion. We introduce kind of a flexibility but we are discussing if we wanna do that on contract level or provide even more freedom on NFT level.

restriction on contract level = more convenient for consumers (e.g. marketplaces)
no restriction on contract level = more freedom for developers but complicating things for marketplaces probably "

3 Likes
25

I think that easy for users is good to start. So, we could define a NFT standard for that purpose.
Another nft standard could be defined for more specific thing, to change metadata on contracts, maybe interact one contract metadata with another one or with users interactions, or even with token prices.
But, it would be great to start simple for users and then could be released new stardars for the new technical needs.
User needs easy ways to use something new. Things are easy when there is no much things to choose. Like “A” or “B”
Then new stardards with much possibilities will come with the needs.

1 Like
26

the proposal is finally merged and now in review. everybody is free to provide reference implementations that reflect the standard :slight_smile:

@zkvonsnarkenstein.chain will you also work on the reference implementation or should somebody else pick that task? when I remember correctly you already have an almost ready implementation, right?

4 Likes
27

btw for anybody interested in this topic. we recently provided an example how to mint using mapped_metadata extension (to be proposed in the standard):

also we identified possible misconception recently in regards to handling events, specifically the Transfer event when it comes to minting and burning of NFTs. feel free to join the discussion here:

the key question is:

  • should we follow the AEX-9 example and avoid using the “zero-address” in Transfer events to define mints and burns or should we instead introduct Mint and Burn events?

cc @zkvonsnarkenstein.chain

2 Likes