CIP 00XX- A standard for smart and programmable NFTs

Hi community,

my name is Phillip from consensusmonky and I would like to discuss the following CIP with you. It is the first version of the proposal and contains many points that you may not understand or that are not even possible. Since the whole system is not that easy to understand and also not easy to improve, a solution should be found with which everyone agrees.

In general, it defines an idea for using NFTs that standardize the way we interact with or consume NFTs.

I hope you understand the overall idea and may have constructive criticism and/or improvements, as well as concerns.

Over the next few days, I’ll add more details and make some updates.



Hi Phil, I read up on twitter that Alessandro was also revising NFT metadata standards, is this the same CIP ?

Hey Icycranberry,

no, but it is “built” on top of the CIP-0068 of Ales. It is a kind of extension.

Just a meta remark: Please don’t assign a number yourself. They are assigned by the editors, when you do a pull request.


@pHiLL - what @HeptaSean says above is absolutely right. For instance that number has already been “chosen” by another tentative CIP in the last week. Even in the simplest cases, it duplicates effort for authors to assign and then have to reassign the number, renaming files and references to them, etc. (with the editors having to manage this process).

In more complicated cases (which we’ve seen recently) the number is either chosen or ends up in collision with a CIP that fails to get focused attention because of inappropriate references on social networking.

Since it sounds like you will be promoting this CIP in the community, if so it’s most essential that you do so by name, and not by number: at least until a number is officially assigned as a candidate CIP.

1 Like

Okay, sorry for the problems that may have occurred. I’ll change that now to avoid confusion. But yes, it makes sense if the number can change at the end.