CIP-0044? | Additional factors for NFT market verification #226
Conversation
Additional factors for facilitating NFT market verification Discussed in discord and forum: 20220209 21:24 Discussion on Discord in Blade adahandle channel: Special thanks to gorath for suggestions on making additional tags available for manual verification or those not wanting to use a Handle. Thanks to BenOJosh for asking hard questions. 20200213 Discussion on [CIP Proposal for discussion " Market CNFT policyID verification "](https://forum.cardano.org/t/cip-proposal-for-discussion-market-cnft-policyid-verification/95268) with @HeptaSean and @LonacheG Tweeted @ many marketplaces and community members to come and engage: https://twitter.com/hadaloha/status/1493435217716998147 https://twitter.com/hadaloha/status/1492719282769121280 https://twitter.com/hadaloha/status/1492715689513132034 https://twitter.com/hadaloha/status/1491639230430208002 https://twitter.com/hadaloha/status/1491559058926555138 Also posted in a few other discord channels.
KtorZ
changed the title
KtorZ
changed the title
|
@mangelsjover let's maybe have this one on the agenda for the next CIP meeting; I feel like we kind of missed to include it earlier. |
| @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ | |||
| |CIP|Title|Authors|Comments-Summary|Comments-URI|Status|Type|Created|License|Requires| | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is another, simpler header format which doesn't rely on fields matching in a table. I hope @KtorZ @SebastienGllmt will correct me if I'm wrong but I think the parsing of CIP information depends on a header format like this (seen at the beginning of the raw Markdown for each of our merged CIP's):
---
CIP: 1
Title: CIP process
Authors: ...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nicholseric can you please move this text in your branch to a *.md file so it's formatted with Markdown, to help us view it at the upcoming meeting? Ultimately it should be in a README.md in its own subdirectory beginning with CIP but without an exact CIP name. 🙏
Hows this? https://github.com/nicholseric/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0044%3F |
@nicholseric that's fine for now 😎 |
|
|
||
| By creating a new tag for the distinct purpose of policyID verification, Cardano Asset makers, and Marketplaces can uniformly verify their policyID’s with predictable results. By creating the instructions on a single, no name asset, all marketplaces will know the correct location of the policyID verification asset, without having to further locate it. By enforcing the requirement of honoring only the latest mint, Cardano NFT creators can move or change their social media accounts and collection information. It is easy to work with this new standard, and does not require an in depth understanding of smart contracts. One URL could potentially support multiple policyID’s. Marketplaces could choose to have these automated verified collections queue into a human review. | ||
|
|
||
| 20220209 21:24 Discussion on Discord in Blade adahandle channel: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this section needs to be part of the CIP
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| { | ||
| "808": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be good to specify this further with actual types and also describe how you handle the transaction metadata size limitations (ex: is "create" always just a string? Can it be an array to get over the 64 byte limit?)
|
from CIP meeting today: editors will make some enquiries to get feedback from NFT marketplace administrators. |
|
today's IO Dev Digest has linked back to this thread, calling for "community feedback" - https://mailchi.mp/iohk/dev-april-digest-675582 |
|
The following NFT marketplaces have been approached for feedback:
|
KtorZ
added
the
State: Waiting for Author
|
@AntMeyer1 have we gotten any feedback from NFT marketplaces on this? |
|
Closing this for the sake of keeping the repository tidy. There hasn't been any sign of life / discussions around this proposal in a while. |
Additional factors for facilitating NFT market verification
Discussed in discord and forum:
20220209 21:24 Discussion on Discord in Blade adahandle channel:
Special thanks to gorath for suggestions on making additional tags available for manual verification or those not wanting to use a Handle.
Thanks to BenOJosh for asking hard questions.
20200213 Discussion on CIP Proposal for discussion " Market CNFT policyID verification " with @HeptaSean and @LonacheG
Tweeted @ many marketplaces and community members to come and engage:
https://twitter.com/hadaloha/status/1493435217716998147
https://twitter.com/hadaloha/status/1492719282769121280
https://twitter.com/hadaloha/status/1492715689513132034
https://twitter.com/hadaloha/status/1491639230430208002
https://twitter.com/hadaloha/status/1491559058926555138
Also posted in a few other discord channels.