Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Soulbound Tokens (SBT) are non transferrable NFTs. Even though tranferability is not available, we define a recoverability mechanism. SBTs are well suited of carrying proof-of-attendence NFTs, proof-of-unique-human "stamps" and other similar credibility-carriers. --- ## NEP Status *(Updated by NEP moderators)* SME reviews: * [x] @KazanderDad (NDC GWG): #393 (review) * [x] @alexastrum (Tenamint): #393 Contract Standards WG voting indications (❔ | 👍 | 👎 ): * 👍 @frol: #393 (review) * 👍 @fadeevab: #393 (review) * -- @robert-zaremba (can't vote myself) Wallet Standards WG voting indications: * ❔ @Cameron-Banyan * ❔ @MaximusHaximus * ❔ @esaminu ## Concerns | # | Concern | Resolution | Status | | --- | --- | -- | -- | | 1 | [Rober] Should we Emit NEP-171 Mint and NEP-171 Burn by the SBT contract (in addition to SBT native events emitted by the registry)? If the events will be emitted by registry, then we need new events to include the contract address. | [Robert] Don't emit NFT events. SBT is not NFT. Support: @alexastrum | open | | 2 | [Robert] remove `memo` in events. The `memo` is already part of the transaction, and should not be needed to identify transactions. Processes looking for events, can easily track transaction through event and recover `memo` if needed. | currently removed, consequently also removed from registry transactions . Support: @alexastrum | open | | 3 | [Token Spam](#393) | [Robert]: we have a `Burn` event. Added example `sbt_burn` function, but keeping it not as a part of required interface. Event should be enough. | open | | 4 | [Multiple registries](#393). Registry source of truth [comment](#393) | Robert: this is a part of the design: permissionless approach. [Justification for registry](#393) | open | | 5 | [Robert] Approve the proposed multi-token | Support: @alexastrum | open | | 6 | [Robert] Use of milliseconds as a time unit. | [Robert] Currently the standard uses milliseconds. | open | | 7 | Should a `burn` function be part of a standard or a recommendation? | [Robert] We already have the Burn event. IMHO a function should not be part of the standard inteface (similarly to FT and NFT). | open | | 8 | [Robert] Don't include `sbt_soul_transfer` in the standard interface, [comment](#393 (comment)). | [Robert] moving outside of the required interface. | open | | 9 | [Privacy](#393) | [Robert] Concerns have been addressed: [comment-1](#393) and [comment2](#393) | open | | 10 | x | resolution | open | --------- Co-authored-by: Vlad Frolov <[email protected]>
- Loading branch information