Add EIP: ERC-721 Utilities Information Extension #6785
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
eth-bot
changed the title
|
✅ All reviewers have approved. |
eth-bot
added
e-consensus
OT-kraftchain
force-pushed
the
eip-5678
branch
2 times, most recently
from
36bbcfd
to
09ff15c
Compare
|
The commit 6153617 (as a parent of de1ced2) contains errors. |
eth-bot
changed the title
abcoathup
reviewed
Mar 28, 2023
EIPS/eip-5678.md
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,203 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| eip: 5678 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| eip: 5678 | |
| eip: 6785 |
Assigning PR number as ERC number.
OT-kraftchain
force-pushed
the
eip-5678
branch
2 times, most recently
from
d15f66a
to
998d0d0
Compare
|
@eth-bot rerun |
23 tasks
20 tasks
19 tasks
SamWilsn
reviewed
May 16, 2023
eth-bot
changed the title
SamWilsn
reviewed
Jun 2, 2023
EIPS/eip-6785.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Motivation | ||
|
|
||
| This specification aims to bring clarity what the utility associated with an NFT is and how to access this utility. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| This specification aims to bring clarity what the utility associated with an NFT is and how to access this utility. | |
| This specification aims to clarify what the utility associated with an NFT is and how to access this utility. |
EIPS/eip-6785.md
Outdated
| Relying on third-party platforms to obtain information regarding the utility of the NFT that one owns can lead to scams, | ||
| phishing or other forms of fraud. | ||
|
|
||
| Currently, utilities that are offered with NFTs, are not captured on-chain. We want the utility of an NFT to be part of |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Currently, utilities that are offered with NFTs, are not captured on-chain. We want the utility of an NFT to be part of | |
| Currently, utilities that are offered with NFTs are not captured on-chain. We want the utility of an NFT to be part of |
EIPS/eip-6785.md
Outdated
| phishing or other forms of fraud. | ||
|
|
||
| Currently, utilities that are offered with NFTs, are not captured on-chain. We want the utility of an NFT to be part of | ||
| the metadata of an NFT, and thus immutable. The metadata information would include: a) type of utility, b) description |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd be careful about claiming immutability here, since you're using URIs. The content located by the URI can be changed, unless it's a data:, ipfs:, or similarly immutable scheme.
EIPS/eip-6785.md
Outdated
| The `supportsInterface` method MUST return true when called with `ed231d73` | ||
|
|
||
| The original metadata SHOULD conform to the “ERC-6785 Metadata with utilities JSON Schema” which is a compatible | ||
| extension of the “ERC-721 Metadata JSON Schema” defined in `ERC-721`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| extension of the “ERC-721 Metadata JSON Schema” defined in `ERC-721`. | |
| extension of the “ERC-721 Metadata JSON Schema” defined in ERC-721. |
EIPS/eip-6785.md
Outdated
Comment on lines
146
to
151
| Instructions on how to access the utility should be available to the owner of an NFT, as it reduces the dependency on | ||
| third-party platforms and the possibility for fraud because the `utilityUri` containing the instructions can only come | ||
| from the entity that provides or facilitates the utility. Thus, the ability to set the `utilityUri` should be restricted | ||
| to the creator who's offering the utility. Since the `utilityUri` contains information that could be restricted to some | ||
| level and is dependent on a third party platform, the creator needs the ability to modify it in the event the platform | ||
| becomes unavailable or inaccessible. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some of this paragraph seems to be adding requirements (sentences containing "should", "may", etc.) Requirements on implementations should go in the specification section.
The rationale section should explain why you made certain technical decisions within the EIP itself.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've moved some of this to the specification and then reworded some of what's left
SamWilsn
reviewed
Jun 8, 2023
SamWilsn
approved these changes
Jun 8, 2023
eth-bot
approved these changes
Jun 8, 2023
eth-bot
approved these changes
Jun 8, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.