Testnet minting an nft collection, wallet shows them as tokens instead of nft\collectibles


I have followed various online tutorials on minting NFT’s and I am struggling to get them to show up in my wallet as NFTs. In Nami, they show under Collectibles but without the IPFS image, or when there are multiple in the policyID, there is just an x# but that window does not expand to show the other threee. In Flint wallet, they are just listed with all the other tokens with an x#. I know the IPFS works, I tested it on pool.pm/test/metadata. Im just wondering if I need to specify somehting different in my policy or metadata? Any ideas on what to check?

Here is the main tutorial I followed. How to mint an NFT on Cardano Testnet using the command line

As far as I know (and according to my own experiments), that guide is wrong. It uses the hex-encoded asset name in the metadata.json, but the non-encoded, readable asset name should be used there.

Like this?

        "721": {
                "<policyID>": {
                        "<must be base-16>": {
                                "name": "<Normal String or base-16>",
                                "id": "3",

No, it should not be base-16!

In the guide you linked, it is:

    "721": {
        "155f313f864d009d7b0b519b1295c9fab7b75c17cfc5ba1aed501b7c": {
            "546573744e465431323334": {
                "name": "TestNFT1234",

If you haven’t done that, that is not your problem.

Can you share a link to your NFT on https://testnet.cardanoscan.io/?

First, thanks so much! Really struggling here.

It looks like the cli needs the asset name in hex but the author took it too far and added it to the metadata?

cardano-cli transaction build \

--alonzo-era \

--testnet-magic 1097911063 \

--witness-override 2 \

--tx-in $txhash#$txix \

--tx-out $first_nft_owner_address+$fee+"$tokenamount $policyid.$tokenname" \

--change-address "$(cat payment.addr)" \

--mint="$tokenamount $policyid.$tokenname" \

--mint-script-file $script --metadata-json-file metadata.json \

--out-file matx.raw

Regardless, I get the same looking NFT with $tokenname=546573744e465431323334

I’ll DM you the link.

Yes, that’s exactly what I am thinking.


You were absolutely correct. The commandline $tokenname needs to be hex and the metadata tokenname needs to be a normal string and they need to match. Once I did that, both Nami and Flint walltes showed them as NFT\Collectibles! Thank you so much.

1 Like

Glad it helped!

Feel free to come again with any further questions. We are always trying to help, here.

This might be worth a different post. What is the point of adding additional img files if the explorers and wallets dont let you browse them? My goal of adding three images was to 1. have a smaller thumbnail to save bandwidth (default), 2. show the original scan or photo, 3. show the digital version or touch up of the original.

A wallet that can do that would be super neat, especially if you could set per nft which image is the users default. In Cornucopias and Pavia I hope they let you choose from multiple image files in an nft.

I also noticed that Nami only shows the thumbnail, but not the other files. Curious, since it is meant to be a wallet app exactly for NFTs and stuff like that.

You can always view them on pool.pm. And ccvault.io also offers to show them.

But I don’t know, what they all do, when there are several files attached. Would be worth a try.

I couldnt figure out how to get ccvault into testnet. And pool.pm doesnt do testnet yet, only a json validator but I imagine it works similarly. pool.pm

Bottom bar says “Mainnet” on the right border. Click on it and select “Testnet”.

Yes looks good in that one, I think.

So simple, right in from of me this whole time lol! I looked and looked and even posted on twitter @ccvauilt lol. I feel dumb.

Yeah, I like pool.pm and how it shows you multiple images.

Do you know about steganography?

Now, that is a pretty unrelated question. Yes, I have read a bit about it. But it seems to have come a little bit out of fashion. Haven’t read something about it in a while.

@bwbush if you are still around this stenography tangent segues nicely into the genetic algorithm mix-in encoding for the pigly token asset names :wink:

Seems that CNFTHunt is using it. I can see why as IPFS guarantees that the image will be served up in its original format whereas most of web 2.0 fiddles with images 80% of the time which destroys typical steganography. Dont want to pay the additional fees of the chain? Keep the metadata slim and steg it in your image. Even exif, iptc etc could serve that purpose. Using one nft to unsteg another? Mind blown.

Depends on what you mean by Web 2.0.

Dropbox or Google Drive will serve your files exactly as you upload them.
Even your own Web 1.0 web space will serve them as you upload them.

Thing is that IPFS is no magical silver bullet that guarantees that the content will always be there. It is just a content-addressed peer-to-peer network, not so much different from Bittorrent, which we have since the early 2000s.

To have your content persistently available, you either have to run your own IPFS server that has your content pinned or you pay a pinning service. And the latter is ridiculously expensive compared to “just use Google Drive”.

1 Like