It might be best for you two to get your own thread?
I don’t know how to split threads, I suppose only @moderators can do it. These three would have to be split out, so that it is still kind of understandable perhaps under a title of “How open is ADA Handle?” or something like that:
If @moderators can do that, they have my support. Thanks for being flexible and willing to move this to a different thread!
If moderators can’t do that, a copy paste would work and leave a link behind here.
I agree that there is no conflict. But by itself, it isn’t that helpful to my project (but maybe it is to other projects). Are you involved in the building of any dApp that would benefit from this CIP? I think more eyes on something like this to gauge its usefulness.
I’m on the CNFTHunt team. Part of creating a scavenger hunt involves onboarding artists. Sometimes these are boutique artists with many small collections. Also the scavenger hunt uses multiple small collections. The work required to register so many policyID’s is quite burdensome for us, the artists and the markets. We have been told by markets that they will not verify these multiple small collections. Hence my effort.
Is it possible that you haven’t fully understood the process in the proposal? It has the potential of automating the existing verification process.
On jpg.store, if you aren’t verified, they won’t honor a 777 royalty token.
I tweeted this today to see if I can’t attract more devs from the stores. https://twitter.com/hadaloha/status/1493435217716998147
Correct me if I’m wrong but we are only verifying social links/URIs and we are not checking for plagiarism (at least not automatically).
You are correct. It is not 808s goal to stop plagiarism. In my opinion that is a fools errand. Give me a few days and the current markets with the existing verification processes and I can plagiarize hundreds of NFT’S. Plus, there’s already blatant copyright infringement happening. You will never employ enough human screeners to stop either plagiarism or copyright infringement.
One of the things 808 can do is verify a social reputation. This is one step in the current system that is seriously flawed and which 808 promises to automate.
When I go to the store, there’s 10 different cans of beans. Some of them even have the same contents and come from the same processor. It’s just the label that’s different. Maybe they even look nearly identical. It’s my choice to read the ingredients. This is how I view NFT. Who is the creator, what’s the ingredients. Let’s give consumers that data. I do not trust the store to sell me only healthy food.
With 808 deployed, I’m not going to buy a Lazy Llama NFT from the creator with a Twitter URI @honungsburk even if the art looks legit especially when I see the Twitter account name and icon listed next to it isn’t the official Twitter account. Especially if it’s only one URI confirmed of potentially a handful (Twitter, Handle, GitHub, Insta). A copycat is not going to be able to fool most people into believing 4 fake copycat social accounts. And if your legitimate collection doesn’t have a social account maybe you aren’t doing it right. But then again you could opt for manual verification.
I am not debating the beauty of your exception based list but at the same time I won’t be spending my time curating my own list of policyID’s or trusting one from anyone else. Getting on one of those lists poses the same problems as getting verified in the current system. If anything, 808 would help you compose a list.
Since we both agree that we are not (and can not) verify the authenticity of any token we should remove that wording such as “policyID verification”. Perhaps something along the lines of “verified URIs for policyIDS” or something along those lines.
1 Like
After a day or so I can’t edit the drafts in the forum. So then I create another post by making a copy and resume editing. How did you overcome this in your thread? Eventually, if we get some kind of consensus, I imagine posting this in GitHub where that isn’t a problem.
| CIP | Title | Authors | Comments-Summary | Comments-URI | Status | Type | Created | License | Requires |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ? | Additional factors for facilitating NFT market verification | havealoha havealoha@gmail.com | No comments | CIP Proposal for discussion " Market CNFT policyID verification " - #31 by havealoha | Draft | Process | 2022-02-09 | CC-BY-4.0 |
Additional factors for facilitating NFT policyID market verification
Simple Summary
A community standard for CNFT policyID’s to facilitate market verification utilizing a no name asset with tag 808 correlated with one or more online or onchain accounts by confirming policyID information from each source. This proposed standard will allow for verification of CNFT policyID’s across the secondary market space. Existing policyID verification varies by market but often relies on a multi step 3 way process involving exchanging a social media message, email or webform which contains the name of the creator, collection name, social media account, and email address. Markets could utilize this proposal to automate the collection of the required information, queue the policyID for manual verification, present consumers with a rating system and/or choose to fully automate the verification process.
Abstract
A creator would start by making a new Cardano NFT policy. Then they create a document or tweet on Twitter, GitHub, a webpage or any URI based online platform within their control. Additionally, an ADA Handle (Handle) with an augmentation specifying a policyID could be used. Within the Handle, tweet or document they would add the policyID of the NFT collection in question. This proves that their Handle, online persona or social reputation controls that particular account. Any popular platform could be used so long as it provides a URI for the market so that it can retrieve the account information and the document with the policyID without impediment. The creator would then create the no name 808 asset, within which, additional tags will specify creator, collection name, and a URI array. Within the URI array, one or more URI’s resolve to the Handle, Tweet or document that contains the policyID. This two step process proves that the creator has control of both the policyID on the chain and the one or more Handles or online accounts. The current verification system would be a fallback for creators with pre-existing collections that can not be updated with an 808 asset or for individual assets where it is otherwise not feasible. Being similar to CIP-0027, the ecosystem is already familiar with part of this proposal. This same set of tags could be added to individual assets as they are minted instead of utilizing the 808 no name token. In that instance, the assetID would be utilized instead of the policyID.
Motivation
CNFT marketplaces struggle to keep up with verifying new collection policyID’s due to the influx of new creators and projects. This standard would relieve the market spaces from verifying new policyID’s and could instead display the social media accounts of the creator who owns the collection. From here the consumer is left to do their due diligence. This process also provides the marketplace with the creator name, collection name and possibly an Avatar\PFP if one is available from the platform hosting the URI.
Specification
A new tag of 808 is proposed for this implementation.
- The creator makes a new Cardano policy.
- They then use one or more existing online platforms where they have a social reputation, one that their potential consumers find trustworthy. On this platform they create content that contains the policyID of the NFT collection in question. If using a Handle, the owner adds the policyID as an augmentation.
- The 808 verification tags are to be written to an unnamed asset, using the policy to be used for the intended Cardano Assets.
- Updates or rewrites are allowed.
- Within this created asset will be the metadata for verification. It will use a tag of 808, and then have three tags to identify the name of the collection, the name of the creator, and URI. Those tags will be “collection”, “creator”, and “URI” respectively.
- The “collection”, “creator” and “URI” key tags can be any UTF-8 value or array. By allowing for an array, any tag can exceed the per line 64 character limitation.
- All markets will be instructed to look for the latest minted 808 asset on a policy and cross reference the URI document policyID data with the 808 asset. If they match, the projectID can be considered validated. The market could then issue a rating system. If multiple URI’s were validated they could show a higher validation score. The creators social media handles could be displayed next to the verified collection or asset.
Example JSON with string
{
"808": {
"collection": "Aloha",
"creator": "Ēwe hānau o ka ʻāina",
"URI": [
"https://twitter.com/hadaloha/status/1493080687959699459",
"https://github.com/nicholseric/nicholseric/blob/master/My%20CNFT%20PolicyIDs",
"$conrad\augmentation\policyIDs"
]
}
}
Example Tweet
I created this new Cardano NFT policy!
6574f051ee0c4cae35c0407b9e104ed8b3c9cab31dfb61308d69f33c
Example GitHub
I created this new Cardano NFT policy!
6574f051ee0c4cae35c0407b9e104ed8b3c9cab31dfb61308d69f33c
Process Flow
- Create policy for planned assets.
- Create online platform document or Handle by inserting or augmenting with a policyID.
- Mint no name asset with 808 metadata.
- Mint planned assets using this same policy.
- Existing policies can mint an appropriate 808 asset.
- The 808 asset can be burned.
Rationale
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:
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:
Also posted in a few other discord channels.
1 Like