CIP-0025 | Change "NFT" to "token" #593
Conversation
As we have standardized the use of fungible tokens for media/collectible tokens (ie: art editions & book copies), we need to avoid using "NFT" as a blanket term in CIP documentation as it can create confusion around whether a CIP includes these other token variants.
rphair
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@BrockCruess I'm trimming the title by removing avoiding exclusion of FT and RFT media tokens because there could well be additional reasons for doing this. I'm putting it on the agenda for the next CIP editors' meeting so we can start thinking about any broader significance of this change beyond simply including semi-fungible tokens.
My "Devil's Advocate" argument for not changing CIP-0025 would be that tokens with some fungibility would be covered more currently by CIP-0068, while on the other hand pure applications of CIP-0025 were more specifically conceived for NFTs and therefore the NFT term serves a historical purpose by justifying the design decisions that were documented at the time.
|
@rphair fair point on the title. However I'd personally prefer we maintain separation of CIP-0068 and CIP-0025, and I know I'm not alone on that. A lot of people already use CIP-0025 for RFTs and a whole art platform is now built and thriving on it (528 artists, 31092 works). There's realistically no downside to the inclusion, and cementing something historically - for the sake of history alone - just leads to bloat in standards. We'd have to copy and paste CIP-0025 and just add RFTs to the new CIP. Looking forward to the outcome of the meeting's discussion! |
|
For what it's worth, I do not believe that this is a "breaking change" and is how many "support" platforms have operated already (i.e. treat every token w/ 721 data the same regardless of the quantity on chain). So, I don't feel there are any major hurdles to making this relatively minor change to the wording of CIP-25 as it will not break any existing solutions that I am aware of. However, that said, there are some other facets of support for "Rich Fungible Tokens" (RFTs for the purpose of CIP-25 & CIP-68) that may warrant their own, separate CIP in the future to help explorers and marketplaces navigate and smoothly handle these tokens. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These changes are minor and largely cosmetic but serve to represent and open up this metadata standard for more than strictly tokens with a quantity = 1. I see no reasons or means by which this would cause any errors with existing implementations so believe it is ready to be merged in.
|
As per our last meeting agreement, not merging yet pending any dispute from implementors (@SmaugPool @alessandrokonrad @mmahut ... feel free to include others) in case the wording change goes against their ongoing intent in any way. Otherwise we'll leave it |
rphair
added
the
State: Last Check
I agree with @Crypto2099. |
* Change "NFT" to "token", avoiding exclusion of FT and RFT media tokens As we have standardized the use of fungible tokens for media/collectible tokens (ie: art editions & book copies), we need to avoid using "NFT" as a blanket term in CIP documentation as it can create confusion around whether a CIP includes these other token variants. * change CIP title also in top level README * also change CIP name in token metadata registry --------- Co-authored-by: Robert Phair <[email protected]>
rphair
removed
the
State: Last Check
As we have standardized the use of fungible tokens for media/collectible tokens (ie: art editions & book copies), we need to avoid using "NFT" as a blanket term in CIP documentation as it can create confusion around whether a CIP includes these other token variants.