make changes recommended by SamWilsn

EIPS/eip-6065.md

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ This proposal introduces an open structure for physical real estate and property
 
 Real estate is the largest asset class in the world. By tokenizing real estate, barriers to entry are lowered, transaction costs are minimized, information asymmetry is reduced, ownership structures become more malleable, and a new building block for innovation is formed. However, in order to tokenize this asset class, a common standard is needed that accounts for its real world particularities while remaining flexible enough to adapt to various jurisdictions and regulatory environments.
 
-Ethereum tokens involving real world assets are notoriously tricky. This is because Ethereum tokens exist on-chain, while real estate exists off-chain. As such, the two are subject to entirely different consensus environments. For Ethereum tokens, consensus is reached through a formalized process of distributed validators. When a purely-digital NFT is transferred, the new owner has a cryptographic guarantee of ownership. For real estate, consensus is supported by legal contracts, property law, and enforced by the court system. With existing asset-backed ERC-721 tokens, a transfer of the token to another individual does not necessarily have any impact on the legal ownership of the physical asset.
+Ethereum tokens involving real world assets (RWAs) are notoriously tricky. This is because Ethereum tokens exist on-chain, while real estate exists off-chain. As such, the two are subject to entirely different consensus environments. For Ethereum tokens, consensus is reached through a formalized process of distributed validators. When a purely-digital NFT is transferred, the new owner has a cryptographic guarantee of ownership. For real estate, consensus is supported by legal contracts, property law, and enforced by the court system. With existing asset-backed ERC-721 tokens, a transfer of the token to another individual does not necessarily have any impact on the legal ownership of the physical asset.
 
 This standard attempts to solve the real world reconciliation issue, enabling real estate NFTs to function seamlessly on-chain, just like their purely-digital counterparts.
 
@@ -55,18 +55,7 @@ interface IERC6065 is IERC721 {
 	event Foreclosed(uint256 id);
 
 	/* 
-	Next getter functions return immutable data for NFT. You may implement in a struct like: 
-
-	struct EIP6065Immutable {
-		string legal_description_of_property;
-		string street_address;
-		string geo_json;
-		string parcel_id;
-		string legal_owner;
-		bytes32 operating_agreement_hash;
-	}
-
-	and store that in a mapping, however this specific storage method is left to the implementor.
+	Next getter functions return immutable data for NFT.
 	*/
 	function legalDescriptionOf(uint256 _id) external view returns (string memory);
 	function addressOf(uint256 _id) external view returns (string memory);
@@ -81,17 +70,7 @@ interface IERC6065 is IERC721 {
 	It's recommended that administrators only use a single token type to denominate the debt. It's unrealistic to require integrating smart
 	contracts to implement possibly unbounded tokens denominating the off-chain debt of an asset.
 
-	If the foreclosed status == true, then the RWA asset can be seen as severed from the NFT. The NFT is now "unbacked" by the RWA.
-
-	You may implement in a struct like:
-
-	struct EIP6065Mutable {
-		address debt_token;
-		int256 debt_amt;
-		bool foreclosed;
-	}
-
-	and store that in a mapping, however this specific storage method is left to the implementor.
+	If the foreclosed status == true, then the RWA can be seen as severed from the NFT. The NFT is now "unbacked" by the RWA.
 	*/
 	function debtOf(uint256 _id) external view returns (address debtToken, int256 debtAmt, bool foreclosed);
 
@@ -106,7 +85,7 @@ interface IERC6065 is IERC721 {
 
 Real world assets operate in messy, non-deterministic environments. Because of this, validating the true state of an asset can be murky, expensive, or time-consuming. For example, in the U.S., change of property ownership is usually recorded at the County Recorder’s office, sometimes using pen and paper. It would be infeasible to continuously update this manual record every time an NFT transaction occurs on the blockchain. Additionally, since real world property rights are enforced by the court of law, it is essential that property ownership be documented in such a way that courts are able to interpret and enforce ownership if necessary.
 
-For these reasons, it is necessary to have a trusted party tasked with the responsibility of ensuring the state of the on-chain property NFT accurately mirrors its physical counterpart. By having an Administrator for the property who issues a legally-binding digital representation of the physical property, we are able to solve for both the atomic transfer of the property rights with the transfer of the NFT, as well as institute a seamless process for making the necessary payments and filings associated with property ownership. This is made possible by eliminating the change in legal ownership each time the NFT changes hands. An example Administrator legal structure implemented by Klasma Inc. for property tokenization in the U.S. is provided in the [Reference Implementation](#reference-implementation). While a token that implements this standard must have a legal entity to conduct the off-chain dealings for the property, this implementation is not mandatory.
+For these reasons, it is necessary to have a trusted party tasked with the responsibility of ensuring the state of the on-chain property NFT accurately mirrors its physical counterpart. By having an Administrator for the property who issues a legally-binding digital representation of the physical property, we are able to solve for both the atomic transfer of the property rights with the transfer of the NFT, as well as institute a seamless process for making the necessary payments and filings associated with property ownership. This is made possible by eliminating the change in legal ownership each time the NFT changes hands. An example Administrator legal structure implemented for property tokenization in the U.S. is provided in the [Reference Implementation](#reference-implementation). While a token that implements this standard must have a legal entity to conduct the off-chain dealings for the property, this implementation is not mandatory.
 
 ### Guiding Objectives
 
@@ -146,9 +125,9 @@ These identifiers, especially `legalOwnerOf`, allow for individuals to verify of
 
 ### debtOf
 
-A readable value of debt and denoted currency that is accrued to the property. A positive balance signifies a debt against the property, while a negative balance signifies a credit. 
+A readable value of debt and denoted currency that is accrued to the property. A positive balance signifies a debt against the property, while a negative balance signifies a credit which can be claimed by the NFT owner. This is a way for the property administrator to charge the NFT holder for any necessary payments towards the property, like property tax, or other critical repairs or maintenance in the "real world". A credit might be given to the NFT holder via this same function, perhaps the administrator and the NFT holder had worked out a property management or tenancy revenue-sharing agreement.
 
-The `debtOf` function also returns the boolean foreclosure status of the asset represented by the NFT. A true result indicates the associated property is no longer backing the NFT, a false result indicates the associated property is still backing the NFT. 
+The `debtOf` function also returns the boolean foreclosure status of the asset represented by the NFT. A true result indicates the associated property is no longer backing the NFT, a false result indicates the associated property is still backing the NFT. An administrator can foreclose an asset for any reason as specified in the `Operating Agreement`, an example would be excessive unpaid debts. Smart contracts can check the foreclosure state by calling this function. If the asset is foreclosed, it should be understood that the RWA backing the NFT has been removed, and smart contracts should take this into account when doing any valuations or other calculations.
 
 There are no standard requirements for how these values are updated as those details will be decided by the implementor. This EIP does however standardize how these values are indicated and read for simplicity of integration. 
 
@@ -164,9 +143,9 @@ This EIP is backwards compatible with ERC-721. However, it is important to note
 
 ## Reference Implementation
 
-Klasma Labs offers a work in progress reference implementation (*see pull request above*). The technical implementation includes the following additional components for reference, this implementation is not required.
+Klasma Labs offers a work in progress [reference implementation](#../assets/eip-6065/ERC6065.sol). The technical implementation includes the following additional components for reference, this implementation is not required.
 
-Summary of Klasma Inc's implementation:
+Summary of this implementation:
 
 * NFT burn and mint function
 * Immutable NFT data (unique identifiers and operating agreement hash)
@@ -177,23 +156,23 @@ Summary of Klasma Inc's implementation:
 
 ### Legal Structure Implementation
 
-This section explains the legal structure and implementation Klasma Inc. employs as an Administrator of this token. The structure detailed below is specific to property tokenization in the U.S. in the 2023 regulatory environment.
+This section explains the legal structure and implementation a company may employ as an Administrator of this token. The structure detailed below is specific to property tokenization in the U.S. in the 2023 regulatory environment.
 
-This section details an implementation of the legal standard by Klasma Inc. specifically for property tokenization in the U.S. in the 2022 regulatory environment.
+This section details an implementation of the legal standard that could be used by a company specifically for property tokenization in the U.S. in the 2022 regulatory environment.
 
 ![Corporate Structure Image](../assets/eip-6065/corporate-structure.png)
 
 
-The Klasma Inc. legal structure for U.S. this token is as follows:
+The legal structure for this token is as follows:
 
-* Klasma Inc., a parent company and property Administrator, owns a bankruptcy remote LLC for each individual property they act as Administrator for.
+* A parent company and property Administrator, owns a bankruptcy remote LLC for each individual property they act as Administrator for.
 * The bankruptcy remote LLC is the owner and manager of a DAO LLC. The DAO LLC is on the title and deed and issues the corresponding NFT and operating agreement for the property.
 * This structure enables the following three outcomes:
 
     1. Homeowners are shielded from any financial stress or bankruptcy their physical asset Administrator encounters. In the event of an Administrator bankruptcy or dissolution the owner of the NFT is entitled to transfer of the DAO LLC, or the sale and distribution of proceeds from the property.
     2. Transfer of the rights to the property are atomic with the transfer of the NFT. The NFT represents a right to claim the asset and have the title transferred to the NFT owner, as well as the right to use the asset. This ensures the rights to the physical property are passed digitally with the transfer of the NFT, without having to update the legal owner of the property after each transfer.
 
-Security note: In the event of a private key hack Klasma will not be able to reissue a Home NFT. Klasma home NFT owners who are not confident in their ability to safely store their home NFT will have varying levels of security options (multi-sigs, custodians, etc.). For public, large protocol hacks, Klasma may freeze the assets using the Blocklist function and reissue the home NFTs to the original owners. 
+Security note: In the event of a private key hack the company will likely not be able to reissue a Home NFT. Home NFT owners who are not confident in their ability to safely store their home NFT will have varying levels of security options (multi-sigs, custodians, etc.). For public, large protocol hacks, the company may freeze the assets using the Blocklist function and reissue the home NFTs to the original owners. Blocklist functionality is to-be-implemented in the reference implementation above.
 
 ## Security Considerations