Add ERC: Minimal Lockable Range NFTs #103
Conversation
File
|
eip-review-bot
changed the title
0xCLARITY
changed the title
eip-review-bot
changed the title
eip-review-bot
changed the title
0xCLARITY
changed the title
eip-review-bot
changed the title
|
The commit 1003b82 (as a parent of f50e2d1) contains errors. |
|
@abcoathup - what are the next steps to get this merged in as a "Draft" or "Review" status? There's been some discussion on the corresponding thread, and I've adopted some requested changes: |
|
Need to wait for an ERC editor to review. |
|
There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review. |
|
I have addressed all required feedback and am ready for a review |
|
There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review. |
| @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| eip: 7558 | |||
| title: Minimal Lockable Range NFTs | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is minimal here describing the standard, or the range? I'd try to reduce the ambiguity in your title.
| --- | ||
| eip: 7558 | ||
| title: Minimal Lockable Range NFTs | ||
| description: A minimal interface for soulbinding multiple ERC-721 NFTs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Including "minimal" here in your description doesn't really add a lot of information, nor would it help to distinguish this proposal from hypothetical others in a similar theme. Try to make your description highlight what makes this proposal special/interesting.
| type: Standards Track | ||
| category: ERC | ||
| created: 2023-11-15 | ||
| requires: 165, 721 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| requires: 165, 721 | |
| requires: 165, 721, 5192 |
EIP-5192 is definitely required reading if the interface here extends IERC5192.
|
|
||
| ## Abstract | ||
|
|
||
| This proposal extends [ERC-721](./eip-721.md). It proposes a minimal interface to make both individual tokens and a contiguous range of tokenIds soulbound (locked). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| This proposal extends [ERC-721](./eip-721.md). It proposes a minimal interface to make both individual tokens and a contiguous range of tokenIds soulbound (locked). | |
| This proposal extends [ERC-721](./eip-721.md) and [ERC-5192](./eip-5192.md). It proposes a minimal interface to make both individual tokens and a contiguous range of tokenIds locked. |
Adding 5192 and removing "soulbound" since these can be unlocked.
|
|
||
| The [ERC-165](./eip-165.md) interfaceId is `0x75587558`. | ||
|
|
||
| > NOTE: The ERC-165 identifier doesn't strictly follow ERC-165 calculations, but there is prior art to assigning a custom identifier to avoid conflict or for ERCs that do not include any functions, like [ERC-4906](./eip-4906.md) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please move this to Rationale.
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| The Locked/Unlocked or RangeLocked/RangeUnlocked event MUST be emitted when the locking status of a token, or a consecutive range of tokens, is changed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please explicitly state when each type of event must be emitted. Do Locked / Unlocked events need to be emitted for every token in the range? I would assume not.
|
|
||
| ## Backwards Compatibility | ||
|
|
||
| This proposal is fully backward compatible with [ERC-721](./eip-721.md). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You should note the backwards incompatible changes to ERC-5192 here too. I assume software watching events would need to treat this kind of contract specially?
It might even be worth sketching out an algorithm for indexer software to follow to determine what types of events to expect.
|
There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review. |
|
This pull request was closed due to inactivity. If you are still pursuing it, feel free to reopen it and respond to any feedback or request a review in a comment. |
Add ERC to support batch operations around soulbound/lockable 721 NFTs.