Add EIP: NFT Flashloans

[outdoteth]

This standard is an extension of the existing flashloan standard (EIP-3156) to support ERC-721 NFT flashloans. It proposes a way for flashloan providers to lend NFTs to contracts, with the condition that the loan is repaid in the same transaction along with some fee.

[eth-bot]

✅ All reviewers have approved.

[abcoathup]

EIP editors assign EIP numbers (as per EIP-1), which is generally the PR number. #6680 is a spam issue, whilst this PR is #6682
I couldn't see where an editor has assigned the number.

[SamWilsn]

Suggested change

	eip: 6680
	eip: 6682

[outdoteth]

Updated

[github-actions]

The commit cd88b3a (as a parent of b71a881) contains errors.
Please inspect the Run Summary for details.

[outdoteth]

@SamWilsn are the rest of the changes ok?

[roughpandaz]

@outdoteth This is very interesting!
What do you foresee as example use cases?
Who do you think will likely integrate with this?

I would think

• Access to events, e.g BAYC events, where the borrower, only needs to prove ownership of the asset at the gate. They can take a flash loan a return the NFT as soon as they are inside the event.

Questions:

• Would people be able to "counter" this by randomly checking the ownership of an NFT to make sure someone is actually the holder?

[outdoteth]

@RongxinZhang I answered a similar question to yours about potential use cases in the eth magicians thread

[SamWilsn]

You'll also need to address the eipw errors. You can see the annotations on the "Files changed" tab of this PR, or the full output in the logs on the "Checks" tab. Each annotation should have a link explaining the rule and why we enforce them.

We generally don't make exceptions to these rules.

[SamWilsn]

This paragraph belongs more in the Rationale section. The Motivation section should justify the existence of the proposal as a whole, while the Rationale section should explain technical choices made within the standard. In this case, supporting a separate currency for fee payment sounds like a technical choice within this standard.

[outdoteth]

Updated

[SamWilsn]

Suggested change

In most cases, the handling of fee payments will be desired to be paid in a seperate currency to the loaned NFTs because NFTs themselves cannot always be fractionalized. Consider the following example where the flashloan provider charges a 0.1 ETH fee on each NFT that is flashloaned; The interface must provide methods that allow the borrower to determine the fee rate on each NFT and also the currency that the fee should be paid in.

In most cases, the handling of fee payments will be desired to be paid in a separate currency to the loaned NFTs because NFTs themselves cannot always be fractionalized. Consider the following example where the flashloan provider charges a 0.1 ETH fee on each NFT that is flashloaned; The interface must provide methods that allow the borrower to determine the fee rate on each NFT and also the currency that the fee should be paid in.

[outdoteth]

updated

[SamWilsn]

Code included inline in the document must be licensed under CC0-1.0. You can remove the comment, put the reference implementation in ../assets/eip-6682/, or:

Suggested change

	// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
	// SPDX-License-Identifier: CC0-1.0

[outdoteth]

updated

[SamWilsn]

Suggested change

	requires: 721, 3156
	requires: 20, 721, 3156

The fees are paid in ERC-20 tokens, so it's a hard requirement.

[outdoteth]

updated

[eth-bot]

All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...