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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add initial draft for Name-bound tokens #5107
Add initial draft for Name-bound tokens #5107
Changes from 3 commits
8bbfb58
9c73a0a
ad52843
5360770
57d60d3
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This interface does not seem to define anything really. Is this still work in progress?
All of this can be accomplished by 721 or 1155. What you may want to specify is a getter function signaling whether a token is "soulbound" or not, but enforcement of that via
transfer
is still up to the particular token.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I disagree on this I think. The specification for a soulbound token defines
ownerOf
and it defines that the result ofownerOf
is immutable across temporally disconnected calls. This means that if you callownerOf
and get back XXX, you can be confident that if you callownerOf
again at any point in the future you would get the same result.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@axic would it help if along with the interface definition, we checked in a reference implementation to this PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is an interface. The only thing what can be prescribed is what the semantics should be, but it cannot be enforced via an interface description. Reference implementations are out of scope.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why not have a
mint
andburn
event instead? Seems like that would be more clear thanTransfer(0, ...)
andTransfer(..., 0, ...)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That is the "industry standard" with all tokens 😬
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should be in the rationale, rather than the backwards compatibility section.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Security Considerations section is required.